Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CAP 437
Standards for Offshore Helicopter Landing
Areas
www.caa.co.uk
CAP 437
Standards for Offshore Helicopter Landing
Areas
February 2013
CAP 437
www.tsoshop.co.uk
E-mail: caa@tso.co.uk
Textphone: 0870 240 3701
CAP 437
Amendment Record
Amendment
Number
Amendment Date
Incorporated by
Incorporated on
1/2013
February 2013
CAA
February 2013
CAP 437
Amendment
Number
Amendment Date
Incorporated by
Incorporated on
CAP 437
Page
Date
iii
February 2013
Chapter
Page
Date
Chapter 4
May 2012
iv
February 2013
Chapter 4
February 2013
Contents
February 2013
Chapter 4
February 2013
Contents
February 2013
Chapter 4
10
February 2013
Contents
February 2013
Chapter 4
11
February 2013
Contents
February 2013
Chapter 4
12
February 2013
Revision History
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Revision History
February 2013
Chapter 5
May 2012
Foreword
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Foreword
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Foreword
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Foreword
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Glossary
May 2012
Chapter 5
May 2012
Glossary
May 2012
Chapter 6
May 2012
Glossary
May 2012
Chapter 6
May 2012
Glossary
May 2012
Chapter 6
February 2013
Chapter 1
May 2012
Chapter 6
February 2013
Chapter 1
May 2012
Chapter 6
May 2012
Chapter 1
May 2012
Chapter 6
May 2012
Chapter 1
May 2012
Chapter 6
May 2012
Chapter 1
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 2
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 7
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
February 2013
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
10
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
11
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
12
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
13
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
14
May 2012
Chapter 8
May 2012
Chapter 3
15
May 2012
Chapter 8
10
May 2012
Chapter 3
16
May 2012
Chapter 8
11
May 2012
Chapter 3
17
May 2012
Chapter 8
12
May 2012
Chapter 3
18
May 2012
Chapter 8
13
May 2012
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 8
14
May 2012
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 8
15
May 2012
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 8
16
May 2012
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 9
May 2012
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 9
February 2013
Chapter 4
May 2012
Chapter 9
May 2012
February 2013
Page iii
CAP 437
Chapter
Page
Date
Chapter 9
May 2012
Chapter 9
May 2012
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
Page
Date
Appendix E
May 2012
Appendix E
May 2012
May 2012
Appendix E
10
May 2012
May 2012
Appendix E
11
May 2012
May 2012
Appendix F
May 2012
Chapter 10
May 2012
Appendix G
February 2013
Chapter 10
May 2012
Appendix G
February 2013
Chapter 10
February 2013
Appendix G
May 2012
Chapter 10
February 2013
Chapter 10
February 2013
Chapter 10
February 2013
Chapter 10
February 2013
Chapter 10
February 2013
Appendix A
May 2012
Appendix A
May 2012
Appendix B
May 2012
Appendix B
May 2012
Appendix B
May 2012
Appendix C
May 2012
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix C
May 2012
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix C
February 2013
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
May 2012
Appendix D
10
May 2012
Appendix D
11
May 2012
Appendix D
12
May 2012
Appendix D
13
May 2012
Appendix D
14
May 2012
Appendix D
15
May 2012
Appendix E
May 2012
Appendix E
May 2012
Appendix E
February 2013
Appendix E
February 2013
Appendix E
February 2013
Appendix E
February 2013
Appendix E
May 2012
February 2013
Chapter
Page iv
CAP 437
Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
February 2013
iii
Revision History
Foreword
Introduction
History of Development of Criteria for Offshore Helicopter
Landing Areas, 1964-1973
Worldwide Application
Safety Philosophy
Structural Design
Surface
12
14
16
Access Points
16
17
17
Contents
Page 1
CAP 437
Chapter 4
Visual Aids
General
Lighting
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
February 2013
11
Complementary Media
Rescue Equipment
Personnel Levels
Training
Emergency Procedures
Further Advice
Helideck Movement
Meteorological Information
General Precautions
Contents
Page 2
CAP 437
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
February 2013
Product Identification
11
12
13
14
14
Aircraft Refuelling
14
16
Night Operations
Contents
Page 3
CAP 437
Appendix A
Checklist
Appendix B
Bibliography
Appendix C
References
Sources
Definitions
3
2
Other Considerations
Appendix D
Appendix E
11
Appendix F
Appendix G
February 2013
Introduction
Contents
Page 4
CAP 437
Revision History
Edition 1
September 1981
The first edition of CAP 437 was published to give guidance on the criteria applied by the CAA
in assessing the standard of helicopter offshore landing areas for worldwide use by helicopters
registered in the UK. The criteria in the CAP relating to fixed and mobile installations in the area
of the UK Continental Shelf were based on the helicopter landing area standards of the
Department of Energy. Additional criteria were given relating to vessels used in the support of
offshore mineral exploitation and tankers, cargo vessels and passenger vessels which were
not subject to the Department of Energy certification. These criteria were evolved following
consultation with the Department of Trade (Marine Division) and the Inter-governmental
Maritime Consultative Organisation. In addition to explaining the reasons behind the chosen
criteria, the first edition of CAP 437 described their application to particular classes of landing
area.
Edition 2
December 1993
The guidance in CAP 437 was revised in the light of International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) recommendations and Health and Safety Executive (HSE)/CAA experience gained from
offshore helideck inspections.
Edition 3
October 1998
Amendments were made to incorporate the results of valuable experience gained by CAA staff
during three and a half years of offshore helideck inspecting with the HSE and from
cooperation with the British Helicopter Advisory Board (BHAB). Analysis of the results of the
inspection regime, completed in April 1995, resulted in changes to the way in which helidecks
were authorised for use by helicopter operators. Other changes reflected knowledge gained
from accidents, incidents, occurrences and research projects. The section concerning the
airflow environment, and the impact on this environment from exhaust and venting systems,
was revised. Also the paragraph numbering was changed for easier reference.
Edition 4
September 2002
August 2005
The CAP was extensively revised to incorporate valuable experience gained from CAA funded
research projects conducted with the support of the UK offshore industry into improved
helideck lighting, helideck environmental effects and operations to moving helidecks. The
sections concerning helideck lighting were considerably revised to ensure that UK good
practice adequately reflected the changes made in 2004 to the ICAO Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPs) for TLOF lighting. The fifth edition also pulled together
revised requirements harmonised amongst North Sea States as a result of initiatives taken by
the Group of Aerodrome Safety Regulators (GASR) Helideck Working Group.
Edition 6
December 2008
The sixth edition is revised to incorporate further results of valuable experience gained from
CAA funded research projects conducted with the support of the UK offshore industry into
improved helideck lighting and the conclusion of projects, jointly funded with the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), relating to offshore helideck environmental issues. In respect of
helideck lighting, a detailed specification for stage 2 lighting systems (addressing illumination
of the heliport identification H marking and the Touchdown/Positioning Marking Circle) is
provided in an Appendix; and a new reference to the final specification for helideck status
lights systems is provided in Chapter 4. In regard to now-completed helideck environmental
May 2012
Revision History
Page 1
CAP 437
projects, Chapter 3 provides formal notification of the new turbulence criterion and the
removal of the long-standing vertical flow criterion.
The sixth edition has also been amended to include new ICAO SARPs relating to offshore
helidecks and shipboard heliports, which generally become applicable from November 2009.
This edition has also been revised to include material which is part of the fourth edition of the
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations, published in
December 2008. For the first time, provisions are included for the design of winching area
arrangements located on wind turbine platforms.
Edition 6, Amendment 01/2010
April 2010
This amendment was issued to provide operators with Additional Guidance Relating to the
Provision of Meteorological Information from Offshore Installations. Editorial amendments
convenient to be included at this time have also been incorporated.
Edition 6, Amendment 02/2010
August 2010
This amendment was issued to correct an error in Chapter 10, paragraph 2 that referred to a
requirement for a medium intensity (rather than a low intensity) steady red obstruction light.
The opportunity has been taken to update part of Chapter 4 relating to helideck lighting and
part of Chapter 5 relating to the location of foam-making equipment. Editorial amendments
convenient to be included at this time have also been incorporated.
Edition 7
May 2012
The seventh edition is revised to incorporate the full and final specification for the Helideck
Lighting Scheme comprising Perimeter Lights, Lit Touchdown/Positioning Marking Circle and
Lit Heliport Identification 'H' Marking.
The seventh edition has also been updated to reflect ICAO SARPs for Annex 14 Volume II due
to become applicable for States from November 2013. Provisions for the design of winching
area arrangements located on wind turbines, first introduced at the sixth edition, has been
reviewed and updated to reflect current best practice with the benefit of lessons learned
through various industry forums attended since 2008.
Edition 7, Amendment 01/2013
February 2013
This amendment was issued to clarify aspects of the final specification and installation
arrangements for the Lit Touchdown/Positioning Marking Circle and Lit Heliport Identification
Marking. Further amendments convenient to be included at this time have also been
incorporated.
February 2013
Revision History
Page 2
CAP 437
Foreword
1
This publication, re-named Standards for Offshore Helicopter Landing Areas, has
become an accepted world-wide source of reference. The amendments made to the
seventh edition incorporate final results of valuable experience gained from the CAAfunded research project conducted with the support of the UK offshore industry and
the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into improved helideck lighting systems. In
particular a final specification for the Touchdown/Positioning Marking (TD/PM) Circle
and Heliport Identification ('H') Marking lighting system is presented in Appendix C,
and referenced from Section 3 in Chapter 4. As a consequence of the introduction to
service of new lighting systems, which the CAA - with the support of the Helicopter
Task Group (established by Oil and Gas UK (OGUK)) - is recommending should be
implemented on all existing and new-build installations operating on the UK
Continental Shelf (UKCS), previous references to the use of deck-mounted
floodlighting systems as an aid to landing have been relegated to Appendix material
(see Appendix G). The CAA believes that the new lighting scheme fully described in
the seventh edition represents a significant safety enhancement over traditional
floodlighting and will take every opportunity to actively encourage the industry to
deploy the new lighting scheme in preference to floodlighting. The TD/PM Circle and
Heliport Identification ('H') Marking lighting forms an acceptable alternative to
floodlights in International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14 Volume II.
NOTE: It had been hoped that the first production version of the new lighting
system would have been installed and evaluated in-service to ensure the
availability of a viable system prior to publication of the seventh edition of
CAP 437. Completion of the evaluation within that time frame is now in
doubt, but it is considered that this is mainly due to issues with the trial's
installation itself rather than the equipment or concept as a whole. The
update to the corresponding material in CAP 437 has therefore been retained
in order to provide the information and stimulus required to initiate
equipment design and production, and planning for deployment. The CAA
will be writing to the industry to advise its recommendations in respect of
the retrofit of the new lighting system, in particular, in terms of timescales
and prioritisation of helidecks. These recommendations will take due
account of the status and results of the ongoing in-service evaluation of the
first production version of the new lighting system.
May 2012
Foreword
Page 1
CAP 437
the Guide was published in December 2008 and the current best practice from the
ICS Guide was reflected in substantially revised Chapters 9 and 10 of the sixth edition
of CAP 437. The UK CAA is grateful to the ICS for providing a number of new figures
for these chapters.
4
In Europe, with the establishment and development of the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) the rulemaking function for States within the European Union is being
transferred from the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) to EASA in a phased
transition which will see Requirements for Air Operators, enacted through Basic
Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008, being transferred from State NAAs to EASA with effect
from the fourth quarter of 2012. After this time holders of UK Air Operator's
Certificates (AOCs) will be assessed for compliance with EASA Operational
Requirements ("EASA Ops") and all certificates issued on the basis of the UK Air
Navigation Order (ANO) or JAR-OPS 3 will be revoked. EASA Operational
Requirements (EASA Ops), Annex IV Part-CAT, will address the use of aerodromes
and operating sites by providing an acceptable means of compliance for authorising
the use of aerodromes and operating sites in AMC material. This AMC material will
be reproduced in future editions of CAP 437, Appendix A, but for the seventh edition
of CAP 437 the AMC material established in JAR-OPS 3 is reproduced. In January
2014 the responsibility for the certification of aerodromes in member States is due to
pass from the NAAs to EASA under Regulation (EC) No. 1108/2009 (amending
Regulation 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air
navigation services). It is not anticipated that helidecks and shipboard heliports will be
covered by the scope of this Regulation, and so helidecks and shipboard heliports
operating on the UKCS will continue to be regarded as unlicensed landing areas (see
paragraph 6). CAP 437 presents the criteria required by the CAA in assessing the
standards of offshore helicopter landing areas for world-wide use by helicopters
registered in the UK. These landing areas may be located on:
fixed offshore installations;
mobile offshore installations;
vessels supporting offshore mineral exploitation; or
other vessels, e.g. tankers, cargo vessels, passenger vessels.
In this publication the term helideck refers to all helicopter landing areas on fixed or
floating offshore facilities used for the exploration or exploitation of oil and gas. For
helicopter landing areas on vessels the term 'shipboard heliport' may be used in
preference to helideck.
The criteria described in CAP 437 form part of the requirements issued by the CAA to
UK helicopter operators which is to be accounted for in Operations Manuals required
under UK aviation legislation in JAR-OPS 3 and in future by EASAs Operational
Requirements (EASA Ops). Helidecks on the UKCS are regarded as unlicensed
landing areas and offshore helicopter operators are required to satisfy themselves
that each helideck to which they operate is fit for purpose. The helicopter operators
have chosen to discharge the legal responsibility placed on them by accepting
Helicopter Landing Area Certificates (HLACs) as a product of helideck inspections
completed by the Helideck Certification Agency (HCA) (see Glossary of Terms). The
HCA, acting for the interests of the offshore helicopter operators, provides the single
focal point for helideck matters in the UK to ensure that a level playing field is
maintained between the operators. The operators have each given an undertaking to
use the HCA system of authorisation by agreeing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) and by publishing relevant material in their company Operations Manuals.
May 2012
Foreword
Page 2
CAP 437
If an offshore helideck does not meet the criteria in CAP 437, or if a change to the
helideck environment is proposed, the case should be referred to the HCA in the first
instance to enable them to collate information on behalf of the helicopter operators
so that the process for authorising the use of the helideck can be completed in a
timely fashion. Early consultation with the HCA is essential if maximum helicopter
operational flexibility is to be realised and incorporated into the installation design
philosophy. It is important that changes are not restricted to consideration of the
physical characteristics and obstacle protected surfaces of the helideck. Of equal, and
sometimes even more, importance are changes to the installation or vessel, and to
adjacent installation or vessel structures which may affect the local atmospheric
environment over the helideck (and adjacent helidecks) or approach and take-off
paths. In the case of new-builds or major modifications to existing Installations that
may have an effect on helicopter operations, the CAA has published guidance on
helideck design considerations in CAA Paper 2008/03, which is available to assist with
the interpretation and the application of criteria stated in CAP 437.
This procedure described for authorising the use of helidecks on fixed and floating
installations operating on the UKCS is co-ordinated by the HCA in a process which
involves OGUK; the British Rig Owners Association (BROA); and the International
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) members individual owner/operator safety
management systems.
The HCA assumes the role of Chairman for the Helideck Steering Committee which
includes senior operational flying staff from all the offshore helicopter operators. The
Helideck Steering Committee functions to ensure that commonality is achieved
between the offshore helicopter operators in the development and application of
operational polices and limitations and that non-compliances, where identified, are
treated in a consistent manner by each operator. The HCA publishes the Helideck
Limitations List (HLL) which contains details of known helidecks including any
operator-agreed limitations applied to specific helidecks in order to compensate for
any failings or deficiencies in meeting CAP 437 criteria such that the safety of flights
is not compromised.
10
11
The criteria in this publication relating to fixed and mobile installations in the area of
the UKCS provide standards which are accepted by the HSE and referred to in HSE
offshore legislation. The criteria address minimum standards required in order to
achieve a clearance which will attract no helicopter performance (payload) limitations.
CAP 437 is an amplification of internationally agreed standards contained in ICAO
Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume II, Heliports.
Additionally it provides advice on best practice obtained from many aviation sources.
Best practice, naturally, should be moving forward continuously and it should be
borne in mind that CAP 437 reflects current best practice at the time of publication.
There may be alternative equivalent means of meeting the criteria presented in CAP
437 and these will be considered on their merits.
May 2012
Foreword
Page 3
CAP 437
12
Additional criteria are given relating to vessels used in support of offshore mineral
exploitation which are not necessarily subject to HSE offshore regulation and also for
other vessels such as tanker, cargo and passenger vessels.
13
Whenever the term CAA is used in this publication, it means the UK Civil Aviation
Authority unless otherwise indicated.
14
As standards for best practice, this document applies the term should when
referring to either an ICAO Standard or a Recommended Practice. The term may is
used when a variation or alternative approach could be acceptable to the CAA. The UK
HSE accepts that conformance with CAP 437 will demonstrate compliance with
applicable offshore regulations. CAP 437 is under continuous review resulting from
technological developments and experience; comments are always welcome on its
application in practice. The CAA should be contacted on matters relating to
interpretation and applicability of these standards and Aviation Law.
May 2012
Foreword
Page 4
CAP 437
AMSL
ANC
ANO
AOC
CAFS
CFD
Class Societies
D-circle
D-value
DIFFS
DSV
EASA
FMS
FOD
FPSO
FSU
May 2012
Glossary
Page 1
CAP 437
HCA
HDWG
Helideck
HHOP
HLAC
HLL
HLO
HMS
HSC
HSE
IATA
ICAO
ICP
ICS
IMO
ISO
JIG
Landing Area
LED
LFL
LOS
MEK
MSI
MTOM
May 2012
Glossary
Page 2
CAP 437
NAA
NAI
NDB
Non-Directional Beacon.
NM
Nautical Mile(s).
NUI
OFS
OGUK
OIAC
OIAC-HLG
OIS
PAI
PCF
Post-Crash Fire.
Perimeter D Marking The marking located in the perimeter line in whole numbers; i.e. the
D-value (see above) rounded up or down to the nearest whole
number.
PPE
RD
Rotor Diameter.
RFF
RFFS
RMS
Run-Off Area
SASF
Shipboard Heliport
SHR
May 2012
Glossary
Page 3
CAP 437
TD/PM Circle
UKCS
UPS
Verification Scheme
VMC
WMO
WSI
May 2012
Glossary
Page 4
CAP 437
Chapter 1 Introduction
1
1.1
In the early 1960s it became apparent that there would be a continuing requirement
for helicopter operations to take place on fixed and mobile offshore installations.
Various ideas were put forward by oil companies and helicopter operators as to the
appropriate landing area standards for such operations. In 1964, draft criteria were
published which used helicopter rotor diameter as a determinant of landing area size
and associated obstacle-free area. In the light of experience and after further
discussions, the criteria were amended and re-published in 1968. These criteria were
then, and still are, based upon helicopter overall length (from the most forward
position of main rotor tip to the most rearward position of tail rotor tip plane path, or
rearmost extension of the fuselage in the case of fenestron or Notar tails). This length
is commonly referred to as D for any particular helicopter as the determinant of
landing area size, associated characteristics, and obstacle-protected surfaces.
2.1
In the early 1970s, the Department of Energy began the process of collating guidance
standards for the design and construction of installations both fixed and mobile.
This led to the promulgation of the Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey
Regulations) 1974, which were accompanied by an amplifying document entitled
Offshore Installations: Guidance on the design and construction of offshore
installations (the 4th Edition Guidance). This guidance included criteria for helicopter
landing areas which had been slightly amended from those issued in 1968. During
1976 and 1977, the landing area criteria were developed even further during a fullscale revision of this document, following consultations between the CAA, the British
Helicopter Advisory Board and others. This material was eventually published in
November 1977 and amended further in 1979. This latter amendment introduced the
marking of the landing area to show the datum from which the obstacle-free area
originated, the boundary of the area, and the maximum overall length of helicopter for
which operations to the particular landing area were suitable. The first edition of
CAP 437 was published in 1981, amended in 1983 and revised in December 1993
(second edition) and October 1998 (third edition). Following a further amendment in
January 2001, a fourth edition of CAP 437, incorporating the new house style, was
placed on the Publications section of the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk in
September 2002. This was superseded by the fifth edition of CAP 437 in August 2005
and a sixth edition in December 2008. Since the early 1990s changes have been
introduced which incorporate the results of valuable experience gained from various
helideck research programmes as well as useful feedback gleaned from an ongoing
inspection and certification process; changes also include the latest helideck criteria
internationally agreed and published as Volume II (Heliports) of Annex 14 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation. A further amendment to Annex 14
Volume II is expected to be adopted early in 2013 (with applicability from
14 November 2013); and the latest helideck and shipboard heliport criteria generated
by the forthcoming ICAO amendment is reflected, in advance of ICAO
implementation, in this seventh edition of CAP 437.
May 2012
Chapter 1
Page 1
CAP 437
2.2
In April 1991 the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the HSE took over from
the Department of Energy the responsibility for offshore safety regulation. The
Offshore Safety Act 1992, implementing the Cullen recommendations following the
Piper Alpha disaster, transferred power to the HSE on a statutory footing. The HSE
also took over sponsorship of the 4th Edition and Section 55 Helicopter landing areas
referring to all installations.
2.3
Since April 1991, the HSE has introduced four sets of modern goal-setting regulations
which contain provisions relating to helicopter movements and helideck safety on
offshore installations. These update and replace the old prescriptive legislation. The
provisions are as follows:
May 2012
Regulations
Covers
1.
2.
Chapter 1
Page 2
CAP 437
3.
May 2012
Chapter 1
Page 3
CAP 437
4.
The HSE has published guidance documents on SCR, MAR and DCR and, in the case of
PFEER, combined guidance and an Approved Code of Practice.
2.4
In February 2005 UKOOA (now OGUK) published Guidelines for the Management of
Offshore Helideck Operations (Issue 5) preceded in 2004 by an HSE publication
Offshore Helideck Design Guidelines which was sponsored by the HSE and the
CAA, and endorsed by the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee Helicopter
Liaison Group (OIAC-HLG). The UKOOA Guidelines have now been superseded by
the Oil and Gas UK Guidelines for the Management of Aviation Operations (Issue
6, April 2011). When referring to the Offshore Helideck Design Guidelines it is the
responsibility of the reader to ensure that no conflict exists with the seventh edition
of CAP 437. Where potential differences arise the current best practice in CAP 437
should always take precedence. Where doubt exists, the reader is advised to seek
guidance from CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate (Helicopters) Section.
3.1
3.2
Worldwide Application
4.1
It should be noted that references are made to United Kingdom legislative and
advisory bodies. However, this document is written so that it may provide minimum
standards applicable for the safe operation of helicopters to offshore helidecks
throughout the world.
May 2012
Chapter 1
Page 4
CAP 437
4.2
4.3
Other helicopter operators, who operate outside the areas covered by JAR-OPS 3 and
who are using this document, are recommended to establish a system for assessing
and authorising each helideck for operational use. It is a fact that many installations
and vessels do not fully comply with the criteria contained in the following chapters.
A system for the assessment of the level of compliance, with processes and
procedures for the management of rectification actions (where practicable) plus a
system for imposing compensating operational limitations (where rectification actions
are impractical), is often the only fail-safe way of ensuring that the level of safety to
flights is not compromised.
May 2012
Chapter 1
Page 5
CAP 437
General Considerations
1.1
The criteria for helicopter landing areas on offshore installations and vessels result
from the need to ensure that UK registered helicopters are afforded sufficient space
to be able to operate safely at all times in the varying conditions experienced offshore.
1.2
1.3
Helicopter companies operating for public transport are required to hold an AOC
which is neither granted nor allowed to remain in force unless they provide
procedures for helicopter crews which safely combine the space and performance
requirements mentioned above.
Safety Philosophy
2.1
Aircraft performance data is scheduled in the Flight Manual and/or the Operations
Manual which enables flight crew to accommodate the varying ambient conditions
and operate in such a way that the helicopter has sufficient space and sufficient
engine performance to approach, land on and take off from helidecks in safety.
2.2
3.1
On any given day helicopter performance is a function of many factors including the
actual all-up mass; ambient temperature; pressure altitude; effective wind speed
component; and operating technique. Other factors, concerning the physical and
airflow characteristics of the helideck and associated or adjacent structures, will also
combine to affect the length of the exposure period referred to in paragraph 2.2.
These factors are taken into account in the determination of specific and general
limitations which may be imposed in order to ensure adequate performance and to
ensure that the exposure period is kept to a minimum. In many circumstances the
period will be zero. It should be noted that, following a rare power unit failure, it may
be necessary for the helicopter to descend below deck level to gain sufficient speed
to safely fly away, or in extremely rare circumstances to land on the water. In certain
circumstances, where exposure periods would otherwise be unacceptably long, it will
probably be necessary to reduce helicopter mass (and therefore payload) or even to
suspend flying operations.
May 2012
Chapter 2
Page 1
CAP 437
General
1.1
1.2
The criteria which follow are based on helicopter size and mass. This data is
summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Perimeter
D
marking
Rotor
diameter
(metres)
Max
weight
(kg)
t
value
Bolkow Bo 105D
12.00
12
9.90
2400
2.4t
Not recommended
EC 135 T2+
12.20
12
10.20
2910
2.9t
Not recommended
Bolkow 117
13.00
13
11.00
3200
3.2t
Not recommended
Agusta A109
13.05
13
11.00
2600
2.6t
Small
Dauphin AS365 N2
13.68
14
11.93
4250
4.3t
Small
Dauphin AS365 N3
13.73
14
11.94
4300
4.3t
Small
EC 155B1
14.30
14
12.60
4850
4.9t
Medium
Sikorsky S76
16.00
16
13.40
5307
5.3t
Medium
Agusta/Westland
AW 139
16.63
17
13.80
6800
6.8t
Medium
Bell 412
17.13
17
14.02
5397
5.4t
Not recommended
Bell 212
17.46
17
14.63
5080
5.1t
Not recommended
18.70
19
15.60
8599
8.6t
Medium
Bell 214ST
18.95
19
15.85
7938
7.9t
Medium
Super Puma
AS332L2
19.50
20
16.20
9300
9.3t
Medium
EC 225
19.50
20
16.20
11000
11.0t
Medium
Sikorsky S92A1
20.88
21
17.17
12020
12.0t
Large
Sikorsky S61N
22.20
22
18.90
9298
9.3t
Large
EH101
22.80
23
18.60
14600
14.6t
Large
Type
1.
Manufacturer derived data has indicated that the Maximum Certificated Take-Off Mass (MTOM) of the S92A may grow
to 12,565 kg. It is understood that structural design considerations for new-build S92 helidecks will normally be based on
the higher take-off mass (12,565 kg). Where structural design is verified by an ICP to be in accordance with the growth
take-off mass, duty holders are permitted to display the higher t value marking on the helideck, i.e. 12.6t.
NOTE:
May 2012
Where skid-fitted helicopters are used routinely, landing nets are not recommended.
Chapter 3
Page 1
CAP 437
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
The HLL system is operated for the benefit of the offshore helicopter operators and
should ensure that landings on offshore helidecks are properly controlled when
adverse environmental effects are present. On poorly designed helidecks, severe
operational restrictions may result, leading to significant commercial penalties for an
installation operator or vessel owner. Well designed and helicopter friendly platform
topsides and helidecks should result in efficient operations and cost savings for the
installation operator.
NOTE:
It is important that the helicopter operators through the agency responsible for the
certification of the helideck are always consulted at the earliest stage of design to
enable them to provide advice and information so that the process for authorising
the use of the helideck can be completed in a timely fashion and in a manner which
ensures that maximum helicopter operational flexibility is realised. Information from
helideck flow assessment studies (see paragraphs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3) should be made
available to the helicopter operators as early as possible to enable them to identify
any potential adverse environmental effects that may impinge on helicopter flight
operations and which, if not addressed at the design stage, could lead to operational
limitations being imposed to ensure that safety is not compromised.
2.2
2.2.1
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 2
CAP 437
The objective of CAA Paper 2008/03 is to help platform designers to create offshore
installation topside designs and helideck locations that are safe and friendly to
helicopter operations by minimising exposure to environmental effects. It is hoped
that, if used from day one of the offshore installation design process when facilities
are first being laid out, this manual will prevent or minimise many helideck
environmental problems at little or no extra cost to the design or construction of the
installation. See also HSE Offshore Information sheet (OIS) No. 5/2011, issued
June 2011.
2.3
Design Criteria
2.3.1
The design criteria given in the following paragraphs represent the current best
information available and should be applied to new installations, to significant
modifications to existing installations, and to combined operations (where a mobile
platform or vessel is operating in close proximity to another installation). In the case
of multiple platform configurations, the design criteria should be applied to the
arrangement as a whole.
NOTE:
2.3.2
When considering the volume of airspace to which the following criteria apply,
installation designers should consider the airspace up to a height above helideck
level which takes into consideration the requirement to accommodate helicopter
landing and take-off decision points or committal points. This is deemed to be up to
a height above the helideck corresponding to 30 ft plus wheels-to-rotor height plus
one rotor diameter.
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 3
CAP 437
2.3.3
Unless there are no significant heat sources on the installation or vessel, offshore
duty holders should commission a survey of ambient temperature rise based on a
Gaussian dispersion model and supported by wind tunnel tests or CFD studies for
new-build helidecks, for significant modifications to existing topside arrangements, or
for helidecks where operational experience has highlighted potential thermal
problems. When the results of such modelling and/or testing indicate that there may
be a rise of air temperature of more than 2C (averaged over a three-second time
interval), the helicopter operator should be consulted at the earliest opportunity so
that appropriate operational restrictions may be applied.
2.3.4
Previous editions of CAP 437 have suggested that some form of exhaust plume
indication should be provided for use during helicopter operations, for example, by the
production of coloured smoke. Research has been conducted into the visualisation
of gas turbine exhaust plumes and guidance on how this can be achieved in practice
has been established. This work is now reported in CAA Paper 2007/02 which
recommends that consideration should be given to installing a gas turbine exhaust
plume visualisation system on platforms having a significant gas turbine exhaust
plume problem in order to highlight the hazards to pilots and thereby minimising its
effects by making it easier to avoid encountering the plume. It is further
recommended that use is made of the helicopter operators existing operations
monitoring programmes to establish and continuously monitor the temperature
environments around all offshore platforms. This action is aimed at identifying any
problem platforms, supporting and improving the contents of the HLL, identifying
any new problems caused by changes to platform topsides or resulting from
combined operations, and identifying any issues related to flight crew training or
procedures.
2.3.5
2.3.6
May 2012
The installation of Status Lights systems (see Chapter 4, paragraph 3.6) is not
considered to be a solution to all potential flight safety issues arising from
hydrocarbon gas emissions; these lights are only a visual warning that the helideck
is in an unsafe condition for helicopter operations.
Chapter 3
Page 4
CAP 437
2.3.7
For temporary combined operations, where one mobile installation or vessel (e.g. a
flotel) is operated in close proximity to a fixed installation, the environmental effects
of hazards emanating from one installation (or vessel) on the other installation (or
vessel) should be fully considered. This assessment should consider the effect of
the turbulent wake from one platform impinging on the helideck of the other, and of
any hot or cold gas exhausts from one installation or vessel influencing the approach
to the other helideck. On occasions there may be more than two installations and/or
vessels in a temporary combined arrangement. Where this is the case, the effect of
turbulent wake and hot gas exhausts from each installation or vessel on all helideck
operations within the combined arrangement should be considered.
NOTE:
Paragraph 2.3 is primarily concerned with the issue of environmental effects on the
helideck design. In respect of permanent multi-platform configurations and
temporary combined operations there are a number of other considerations that
may need to be addressed. These include, but may not be limited to, the effect of
temporary combined operations on helideck obstacle protection criteria. Additional
considerations are described in more detail in the OGUK Guidelines for the
Management of Aviation Operations.
Structural Design
3.1
The take-off and landing area should be designed for the heaviest and largest
helicopter anticipated to use the facility (see Table 1). Helideck structures should be
designed in accordance with relevant International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) codes for offshore structures and for floating installations. The maximum size
and mass of helicopters for which the helideck has been designed should be stated
in the Installation/Vessel Operations Manual and Verification and/or Classification
document.
3.2
Optimal operational flexibility may be gained from considering the potential life and
usage of the facility along with likely future developments in helicopter design and
technology.
3.3
Consideration should also be given in the design to other types of loading such as
personnel, other traffic, snow and ice, freight, refuelling equipment, rotor
downwash etc. as stated in the relevant ISO codes. It may be assumed that single
main rotor helicopters will land on the wheel or wheels of two landing gear (or both
skids if fitted). The resulting loads should be distributed between two main
undercarriages. Where advantageous a tyre contact area may be assumed in
accordance with the manufacturers specification. Ultimate limit state methods may
be used for the design of the helideck structure, including girders, trusses, pillars,
columns, plating and stiffeners. A serviceability limit check should also be performed
to confirm that the maximum deflection of the helideck under maximum load is within
code limits. This check is intended to reduce the likelihood of the helideck structure
being so damaged during an emergency incident as to prevent other helicopters from
landing.
NOTES: 1. Requirements for the structural design of helidecks are comprehensively set out
in ISO 19901-3 Petroleum and natural gas industries Specific requirements for
offshore structures, Part 3: Topsides structure (published in December 2010).
Useful guidance is also given in the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee
(OIAC) publication Offshore Helideck Design Guidelines published by the HSE.
2. Consideration should be given to the possibility of accommodating an
unserviceable helicopter in a designated parking or run-off area (where provided)
adjacent to the helideck to allow a relief helicopter to land. If this contingency is
designed into the construction/operating philosophy of the installation, the
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 5
CAP 437
4.1
The helideck should be designed to withstand all the forces likely to act when a
helicopter lands. The loads and load combinations to be considered should include:
a) Dynamic load due to impact landing. This should cover both a heavy normal
landing and an emergency landing. For the former, an impact load of 1.5 x MTOM
of the helicopter should be used, distributed as described in paragraph 3.3. This
should be treated as an imposed load, applied together with the combined effect
of b) to f) in any position on the landing area so as to produce the most severe load
on each structural element. For an emergency landing, an impact load of 2.5 x
MTOM should be applied in any position on the landing area together with the
combined effects of b) to f) inclusive. Normally, the emergency landing case will
govern the design of the structure.
b) Sympathetic response of landing platform. After considering the design of the
helideck structures supporting beams and columns and the characteristics of the
designated helicopter, the dynamic load (see a) above) should be increased by a
suitable structural response factor depending upon the natural frequency of the
helideck structure. It is recommended that a structural response factor of 1.3
should be used unless further information allows a lower factor to be calculated.
Information required to do this will include the natural periods of vibration of the
helideck and the dynamic characteristics of the designated helicopter and its
landing gear.
c) Overall superimposed load on the landing platform. To allow for any
appendages that may be present on the deck surface (e.g. helideck net, "H" and
circle lighting etc.) in addition to wheel loads, an allowance of 0.5 kiloNewtons per
square metre (kN/m2) should be added over the whole area of the helideck.
d) Lateral load on landing platform supports. The landing platform and its
supports should be designed to resist concentrated horizontal imposed loads
equivalent to 0.5 x MTOM of the helicopter, distributed between the
undercarriages in proportion to the applied vertical loading in the direction which
will produce the most severe loading on the element being considered.
e) Dead load of structural members. This is the normal gravity load on the element
being considered.
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 6
CAP 437
f) Wind loading. Wind loading should be allowed for in the design of the platform.
The 100-year return period wind actions should be applied in the direction which,
together with the imposed lateral loading, will produce the most severe loading
condition on each structural element.
g) Punching shear. A check should be made for the punching shear from a wheel of
the landing gear with a contact area of 65 x 103 mm2 acting in any probable
location. Particular attention to detailing should be taken at the junction of the
supports and the platform deck.
5.1
The helideck should be designed to withstand all the applied forces that could result
from a helicopter at rest; the following loads should be taken into account:
a) Imposed load from helicopter at rest. All areas of the helideck accessible to a
helicopter, including any separate parking or run-off area, should be designed to
resist an imposed load equal to the MTOM of the helicopter. This load should be
distributed between all the landing gear. It should be applied in any position on the
helideck so as to produce the most severe loading on each element considered.
b) Overall superimposed load. To allow for personnel, freight, refuelling equipment
and other traffic, snow and ice, rotor downwash etc., an allowance of 2.0
kiloNewtons per square metre (kN/m2) should be added to the whole area of the
helideck.
c) Dead load and wind load. The values for these loads are the same as given in
paragraph 4.1 e) and f) and should be considered to act simultaneously in
combination with a) and b). Consideration should also be given to the additional
wind loading from any parked or secured helicopter.
d) Acceleration forces and other dynamic amplification forces. The effect of
these forces, arising from the predicted motions of mobile installations and
vessels, in the appropriate environmental conditions (corresponding to a 10-year
return period), should be considered.
6.1
For any particular type of single main rotor helicopter, the helideck should be
sufficiently large to contain a circle of diameter D equal to the largest dimension of
the helicopter when the rotors are turning. This D-circle should be totally
unobstructed (see Table 1 for D values). Due to the actual shape of most offshore
helidecks the D-circle will be hypothetical but the helideck shape should be capable
of accommodating such a circle within its physical boundaries.
6.2
From any point on the periphery of the above mentioned D-circle an obstacle-free
approach and take-off sector should be provided which totally encompasses the
landing area (and D-circle) and which extends over a sector of at least 210. Within
this sector obstacle accountability should be considered out to a distance from the
periphery of the landing area that will allow for an unobstructed departure path
appropriate to the helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. For helicopters
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 7
CAP 437
operated in Performance Class 1 or 2 the horizontal extent of this distance from the
helideck will be based upon the one-engine inoperative capability of the helicopter
type to be used. In consideration of the above, only the following items essential for
safe helideck operations may exceed the height of the landing area, but should not do
so by more than 25 centimetres for any helideck where the D-value is greater than
16.00 m or by more than 5 cm for any helideck where the D-value is 16.00 m or less:
the guttering (associated with the requirements in paragraph 7.2);
the lighting required by Chapter 4;
the foam monitors (where provided); and
those handrails and other items (e.g. EXIT sign) associated with the landing area
which are incapable of complete retraction or lowering for helicopter operations.
6.3
Objects whose function requires that they be located on the surface of the helideck
such as landing nets, tie-down points, and circle and H lighting systems (see
Appendix C) should not exceed a height of 25 mm. Such objects should only be
present above the surface of the touchdown area provided they do not cause a hazard
to helicopter operations.
6.4
The bisector of the 210 Obstacle Free Sector (OFS) should normally pass through the
centre of the D-circle. The sector may be swung by up to 15 as illustrated in
Figure 1. Acceptance of the swung criteria will normally only be applicable to
existing installations.
NOTE:
6.5
The diagram at Figure 1 shows the extent of the two segments of the 150 Limited
Obstacle Sector (LOS) and how these are measured from the centre of the
(hypothetical) D-circle and from the perimeter of the landing area. This diagram
assumes, since most helidecks are designed to the minimum requirement of
accommodating a 1 D-circle, that the D-circle perimeter and landing area perimeter
are coincidental. No objects above 25 cm (or 5 cm where the D-value of the helideck
is 16.00 m or less) are permitted in the first (hatched area in Figure 1) segment of the
LOS. The first segment extends out to 0.62D from the centre of the D-circle, or 0.12D
from the landing area perimeter marking. The second segment of the LOS, in which
no obstacles are permitted to penetrate, is a rising 1:2 slope originating at a height of
0.05D above the helideck surface and extending out to 0.83D from the centre of the
D-circle (i.e. a further 0.21D from the edge of the first segment of the LOS).
NOTE:
6.6
If the 210 OFS is swung, then it would be normal practice to swing the 180 falling
5:1 gradient by a corresponding amount to indicate, and align with, the swung OFS.
The exact point of origin of the LOS is assumed to be at the periphery of the D-circle.
Some helidecks are able to accommodate a landing area which covers a larger area
than the declared D-value; a simple example being a rectangular deck with the minor
dimension able to contain the D-circle. In such cases it is important to ensure that the
origin of the LOS (and OFS) is at the perimeter of the landing area as marked by the
perimeter line. Any landing area perimeter should guarantee the obstacle protection
afforded by both segments of the LOS. The respective measurements of 0.12D from
the landing area perimeter line plus a further 0.21D are to be applied. On these larger
decks there is thus some flexibility in deciding the position of the perimeter line and
landing area in order to meet the LOS requirements and when considering the
position and height of fixed obstacles. Separating the origin of the LOS from the
perimeter of the D-circle in Figure 1 and moving it to the right of the page will
demonstrate how this might apply on a rectangular-shaped landing area.
February 2013
Chapter 3
Page 8
CAP 437
15
150
LIMITED
OBSTACLE
0.25 D
15
0.83 D
0.62 D
1:2
0.05 D
CM
D
0.12 D
0.21 D
Figure 1
6.7
May 2012
Obstacle Limitation (Single Main Rotor and Side by Side Main Rotor Helicopters)
showing position of Touchdown/Positioning Marking circle
Note: Where the D-value is 16.00 m or less, objects in the first segment of the
LOS are restricted to 5 cm.
The extent of the LOS segments will, in all cases, be lines parallel to the landing area
perimeter line and follow the boundaries of the landing area perimeter (see Figure 1).
Only in cases where the perimeter of the landing area is circular will the extent of the
LOS be in the form of arcs to the D-circle. However, taking the example of an
octagonal landing area as drawn at Figure 1, it would be possible to replace the angled
corners of the two LOS segments with arcs of 0.12D and 0.33D centred on the two
adjacent corners of the landing area, thus cutting off the angled corners of the LOS
Chapter 3
Page 9
CAP 437
segments. If these arcs are applied they should not extend beyond the two corners
of each LOS segment so that minimum clearances of 0.12D and 0.33D from the
corners of the landing area are maintained. Similar geometric construction may be
made to a square or rectangular landing area but care should be taken to ensure that
the LOS protected surfaces minima can be satisfied from all points on the inboard
perimeter of the landing area.
6.8
Whilst application of the criteria in paragraph 6.2 will ensure that no unacceptable
obstructions exist above the helicopter landing area level over the whole 210 sector,
it is necessary to consider the possibility of helicopter loss of height due to a power
unit failure during the latter stages of the approach or early stages of take-off.
Accordingly, a clear zone should be provided below landing area level on all fixed and
mobile installations between the helideck and the sea. The falling 5:1 gradient should
be at least 180 with an origin at the centre of the D-circle and ideally it should cover
the whole of the 210 OFS. It should extend outwards for a distance that will allow
for safe clearance from obstacles below the helideck in the event of an engine failure
for the type of helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. (See also Glossary of
Terms and Abbreviations.) For helicopters operated in Performance Class 1 or 2 the
horizontal extent of this distance from the helideck will be based upon the one-engine
inoperative capability of the helicopter type to be used (see Figure 2). All objects that
are underneath anticipated final approach and take-off paths should be assessed.
NOTES: 1. For practical purposes the falling obstacle limitation surface can be assumed to
be defined from points on the outboard edge of the helideck perimeter safety
netting supports (not less than 1.5 metres from deck edge). Minor infringements
of the surface by foam monitor platforms or access/escape routes may be
accepted only if they are essential to the safe operation of the helideck but may
also attract helicopter operational limitations.
2. Research completed in 1999 (see Appendix B references) demonstrated that,
following a single engine failure in a twin engine helicopter after take-off decision
point, and assuming avoidance of the deck edge, the resulting trajectory will
carry the helicopter clear of any obstruction in the range 2:1 to 3:1. It is therefore
only necessary for operators to account for performance in relation to specified
5:1 falling gradient when infringements occur to a falling 3:1 rather than a 5:1
slope.
6.9
It is recognised that when support installations, such as flotels and crane-barges, are
operating close to other installations, it will not always be possible to meet the
horizontal and vertical obstacle protected surface requirements. In these
circumstances, installation operators should attempt to meet the above criteria as
closely as possible when planning the siting of a combination of installations or an
installation and a vessel, and should forward drawings of the proposed configuration
to the agency responsible for the certification of the helideck as early as possible in
the process for assessment and consultation on the operational aspects. Consultation
with the helicopter operators in the early planning stages will help to optimise
helicopter operations for support installation location.
NOTE:
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 10
CAP 437
Safety net
(not less than 1.5 m)
D
Helideck level
5:1 Falling gradient
Sea level
210 sector
Landing
area
180 sector
Ma
(no gnifi
t to cat
sca ion
le)
Safety
net (not less
than 1.5 m)
PLAN VIEW
Safety net
(not less than 1.5 m)
Landing area
No structure
between these
lines in 180 sector
No structure
between these
lines in 180 sector
n
gradie
5 : 1 Fal
ling gr
a
lling
5 : 1 Fa
dient
Area in which
Rig Structure
is permitted
in 180 sector
Sea level
Sea level
ELEVATION
Figure 2
6.10
May 2012
Obstacle Free Areas Below Landing Area Level (for all types of helicopters)
It is accepted that, at times, short-term infringement to obstacle-protected surfaces
cannot be avoided when, for example, supply/support vessels work close to an
installation. It may be impractical to assess such situations within the time available.
Chapter 3
Page 11
CAP 437
However, the helicopter operator may need to apply operational limitations in such
circumstances. It is therefore important for helicopter crews to be kept informed of
all temporary infringements.
Surface
NOTE:
7.1
Where a helideck is constructed in the form of a grating, e.g. where a passive fireretarding system is selected (see Chapter 5), the design of the helideck should
ensure that ground effect is not reduced.
The landing area should have an overall coating of non-slip material and all markings
on the surface of the landing area should be finished with the same non-slip materials.
Whilst extruded section or grid construction aluminium (or other) decks may provide
adequate resistance to sliding, they should be coated with a non-slip material unless
adequate friction properties have been confirmed by measurement (see paragraph
7.5). It is important that adequate friction exists in all directions and in worst case
conditions, i.e. when the deck is wet. Over-painting friction surfaces on such designs
with other than non-slip material will likely compromise the surface friction. Suitable
surface friction material is available commercially.
NOTE: Full-scale testing of a sample of aluminium helidecks has indicated that such
decks are unlikely to meet the minimum friction requirement without a nonslip coating or some other verified means. This work is to be published in a
CAA Paper for reference in a future edition of CAP 437.
7.2
Every landing area should be equipped with adequate surface drainage arrangements
and a free-flowing collection system that will quickly and safely direct any rainwater
and/or fuel spillage and/or fire fighting media away from the helideck surface to a safe
place. Helidecks on fixed installations should be cambered (or laid to a fall) to
approximately 1:100. Any distortion of the helideck surface on an installation due to,
for example, loads from a helicopter at rest should not modify the landing area
drainage system to the extent of allowing spilled fuel to remain on the deck. A system
of guttering on a new-build or a slightly raised kerb should be provided around the
perimeter to prevent spilled fuel from falling on to other parts of the installation and
to conduct the spillage to an appropriate drainage system. The capacity of the
drainage system should be sufficient to contain the maximum likely spillage of fuel on
the helideck. The calculation of the amount of spillage to be contained should be
based on an analysis of helicopter type, fuel capacity, typical fuel loads and uplifts.
The design of the drainage system should preclude blockage by debris. The helideck
area should be properly sealed so that spillage will only route into the drainage
system.
7.3
Tautly-stretched rope netting should be provided to aid the landing of helicopters with
wheeled undercarriages in adverse weather conditions. The intersections should be
knotted or otherwise secured to prevent distortion of the mesh. It is preferable that
the rope be constructed of sisal, with a maximum mesh size of 200 mm. The rope
should be secured at intervals approximately 1.5 metres between the lashing points
around the landing area perimeter and tensioned to at least 2225 N. Subject to
acceptance by the agency responsible for the certification of the helideck, netting
made of material other than sisal may be considered but netting should not be
constructed of polypropylene-type material which is known to rapidly deteriorate and
flake when exposed to weather. Tensioning to a specific value may be impractical
offshore. As a rule of thumb, it should not be possible to raise any part of the net by
more than approximately 250 mm above the helideck surface when applying a
vigorous vertical pull by hand. The location of the net should ensure coverage of the
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 12
CAP 437
area of the TD/PM but should not cover the helideck identification marking or t value
markings. Some nets may require modification to corners so as to keep the
identification markings uncovered. In such circumstances the dimensions given in
Table 2 may be modified.
NOTE:
7.4
There are three standard sizes of netting as listed below in Table 2. The minimum size
depends upon the type of helicopter for which the landing area is to be used as
indicated in Table 1.
Table 2
Small
9 metres by 9 metres
Medium
12 metres by 12 metres
Large
15 metres by 15 metres
NOTE:
7.5
Some helideck nets may be circular rather than square. Netting should cover the
whole of the TD/PM Circle and it may be necessary to utilise non-standard sizes of
netting to achieve this.
For fixed Normally Attended Installations (NAIs), where no significant movement due
to environmental conditions occurs, provided the helideck can be shown to achieve
an average surface friction value of not less than 0.65 determined by a test method
acceptable to the CAA, the helideck landing net may be removed. The installation
operator should ensure thereafter that the helideck is kept free from oil, grease, ice,
snow, excessive surface water or any other contaminant (particularly guano) that
could degrade surface friction. Assurance should be provided to the helicopter
operator that procedures are in place for elimination and removal of contaminants
prior to helicopter movements. Following removal of the netting, the helideck should
be re-tested at regular intervals. The criteria for initial removal and the frequency of
subsequent testing should be approved by an ICP, subject to the guidance contained
in CAA Paper 98002. Friction testing periodicity can be determined using a simple
trend analysis as described in this paper. Table 3 indicates typical frequencies of
inspection for given ranges of friction values.
NOTE: A review of helideck friction measurement techniques has concluded that
the test method should involve a friction measuring device that:
employs the braked wheel technique;
is able to control the wetness of the deck during testing;
includes electronic data collection, storage and processing; and
allows the whole of the deck surface to be covered to a resolution of not
less than 1 m2.
The minimum average surface friction value of 0.65 should be achieved
across the area inside the TD/PM, outside the TD/PM and on the paint
markings themselves. An example test protocol will be produced and
published in a CAA Paper for reference in a future edition of CAP 437.
7.6
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 13
CAP 437
7.7
Landing nets on mobile installations have generally, in the absence of any research,
been regarded as essential. However, it may be possible to present a safety case to
the agency responsible for the certification of the helideck for specific installations.
Table 3
1.
36 months
0.7 to 0.84
12 months
0.65 to 0.69
6 months
Net to be retained
7.8
Experience has shown that the removal of landing nets on some installations has
resulted in undesirable side-effects. Although the purpose of the landing net is to help
prevent the helicopter sliding on the helideck, it does also provide a degree of visual
cueing to pilots in terms of rate of closure and lateral movement. Such visual cueing
is essential for safe control of the helicopter and, on some installations, removal of
the landing net could significantly degrade the cueing environment. Serious
consideration should be given to this aspect before a landing net is removed. The
helicopter operator should be consulted before existing landing nets are removed and
installation operators should be prepared to re-fit landing nets if so advised by the
helicopter operator in the case that visual cueing difficulties are experienced. For
these reasons it is also recommended that the design of new installations should
incorporate the provision of landing net fittings regardless of the type of friction
surface to be provided.
8.1
Sufficient flush fitting (when not in use) tie-down points should be provided for
securing the maximum sized helicopter for which the helideck is designed. They
should be so located and be of such strength and construction to secure the
helicopter when subjected to weather conditions pertinent to the installation design
considerations. They should also take into account, where significant, the inertial
forces resulting from the movement of floating units.
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 14
CAP 437
R7m
R2.5m
R5m
Figure 3
8.2
8.3
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 15
CAP 437
9.1
Safety nets for personnel protection should be installed around the landing area
except where adequate structural protection against a fall exists. The netting used
should be of a flexible nature, with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of
the helicopter landing deck. The net itself should extend at least 1.5 metres in the
horizontal plane and be arranged so that the outboard edge does not exceed the level
of the landing area and angled so that it has an upward and outward slope of
approximately 10.
9.2
A safety net designed to meet these criteria should contain personnel falling into it
and not act as a trampoline. Where lateral or longitudinal centre bars are provided to
strengthen the net structure they should be arranged and constructed to avoid
causing serious injury to persons falling on to them. The ideal design should produce
a hammock effect which should securely contain a body falling, rolling or jumping
into it, without serious injury. When considering the securing of the net to the
structure and the materials used, care should be taken that each segment will be fit
for purpose. Polypropylene deteriorates over time; various wire meshes have been
shown to be suitable if properly installed.
NOTES: 1. It is not within the scope or purpose of CAP 437 to provide detailed advice for
the design, fabrication and testing of helideck perimeter nets. These specific
issues are addressed in the OGUK Guidelines for the Management of Aviation
Operations.
2. Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of
sacrificial panels for testing.
3. Perimeter nets that extend up to 2.0 m in the horizontal plane, measured from
the edge of the landing area, are unlikely to attract operational limitations.
10
Access Points
10.1
10.2
10.3
The need to preserve, in so far as possible, an unobstructed falling 5:1 gradient (see
paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9) and the provision of up to three helideck access/escape
routes, with associated platforms, may present a conflict of requirements. A
compromise may therefore be required between the size of the platform
commensurate with its effectiveness and the need to retain the protection of an
unobstructed falling 5:1 gradient. In practice, the 5:1 gradient is taken from the
outboard edge of the helideck perimeter safety net supports. Emergency access
points which extend outboard from the perimeter safety net constitute a compromise
in relation to an unobstructed falling 5:1 gradient which may lead, in some instances,
to the imposition of helicopter operating limitations. It is therefore important to
construct access point platforms in such a manner as to infringe the falling 5:1
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 16
CAP 437
gradient by the smallest possible amount but preferably not at all. Suitable positioning
of two major access points clear of the requirements of the protection of the falling
5:1 gradient should be possible. However, the third access referred to at paragraph
10.2 will probably lie within the falling 5:1 sector and where this is the case it should
be constructed within the dimensions of the helideck perimeter safety net supports
(i.e. contained within a horizontal distance of 1.5 - 2.0 m measured from the edge of
the landing area).
10.4
Where foam monitors are co-located with access points care should be taken to
ensure that no monitor is so close to an access point as to cause injury to escaping
personnel by operation of the monitor in an emergency situation.
10.5
Where handrails associated with helideck access/escape points exceed the height
limitations given at paragraph 6.2 they should be retractable, collapsible or removable.
When retracted, collapsed or removed the rails should not impede access/egress.
Handrails which are retractable, collapsible and removable should be painted in a
contrasting colour scheme. Procedures should be in place to retract, collapse or
remove them prior to helicopter arrival. Once the helicopter has landed, and the crew
have indicated that passenger movement may commence (see Note below), the
handrails may be raised and locked in position. The handrails should be retracted,
collapsed or removed again prior to the helicopter taking off.
NOTE:
The helicopter crew will switch off the anti-collision lights to indicate that the
movement of passengers and/or freight may take place (under the control of the
HLO). Installation/vessel safety notices placed on approach to the helideck access
should advise personnel not to approach the helicopter when the anti-collision lights
are on.
11
11.1
It should be noted that for any installation or vessel, attended or unattended, fixed or
mobile for which helicopters are a normal mode of transport for personnel, a
helicopter landing area should be provided. Winching should not be adopted as a
normal method of transfer. However, if winching operations are required, they should
be conducted in accordance with procedures agreed between the helicopter operator
and the CAA and contained within the helicopter operators Operations Manual.
Requirements for winching operations should be discussed with the specific
helicopter operator well in advance. Winching area design arrangements are
described in more detail in Chapter 10.
12
12.1
The CAA provides guidance for helicopter operators on the routeing of helicopters
intending to land on NUIs. The CAA will also provide such guidance and advice to
helicopter operators and installation operators in consideration of specific installation
safety cases and risk analyses which address routeing philosophy.
12.2
Guano and associated bird debris is a major problem for NUIs. Associated problems
concern the health hazard on board; degradation of visual aids (markings and lighting)
and friction surfaces; and the potential for Foreign Object Debris/Damage (FOD).
Helicopter operators should continuously monitor the condition of NUI helidecks and
advise the owner/operator before marking and lighting degradation becomes a safety
concern. Experience has shown that, unless adequate cleaning operations are
undertaken or effective preventative measures are in place, essential visual aids will
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 17
CAP 437
May 2012
Chapter 3
Page 18
CAP 437
General
1.1
The name of the installation should be clearly displayed in such positions on the
installation so that it can be readily identified from the air and sea from all normal
angles and directions of approach. For identification from the air the helideck name
and the side identification panels are used. It is not necessary, nor is it a legal
requirement, to complicate recognition processes by inclusion of block numbers,
company logos, or other designators. In fact, complication of identifiers can be
confusing and will unnecessarily, and undesirably, extend the mental process of
recognition at the critical time when the pilots concentration is being fully exercised
by the demands of the landing manoeuvre. The names on both identification markings
should be identical, simple and unique and facilitate unambiguous communication via
radio. The approved radio callsign of the installation should be the same name as the
helideck and side panel identifier. Where the inclusion of block numbers on side
identification panels is deemed to be essential (i.e. for purposes other than
recognition), the name of the installation should also be included; e.g. NAME. BLOCK
NO. The installation identification panels should be highly visible in all light conditions.
They should be suitably illuminated at night and in conditions of poor visibility. In order
to minimise the possibility of wrong rig landings use of new technology is
encouraged so that identification can be confirmed in the early stages of the approach
by day and night. Modern technology is capable of meeting this requirement in most
ambient lighting conditions. Use of high-intensity Light Emitting Diode (LED) cluster
or fibre-optic systems in other applications have been shown to be effective even in
severely reduced visibility. Additionally, it is recognised that alternative technologies
have been developed consisting of highly visible reflective side signage that has been
successfully installed on some installations with the co-operation of the helicopter
operator. (HSE Operations Notice 39, re-issued in June 2008, provides Guidance on
Identification of Offshore Installations.)
1.2
1.3
The installation identification (see paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2) should be marked on the
helideck surface between the origin of the OFS and the TD/PM Circle in symbols not
less than 1.2 metres high and in a colour (normally white) which contrasts with the
helideck surface. The name should not be obscured by the deck net (where fitted).
1.4
Helideck perimeter line marking and lighting serves to identify the limits of the
Landing Area (see Glossary) for day and night operations respectively.
1.5
May 2012
Chapter 4
Page 1
CAP 437
where it may compromise obstacle protected surfaces, create its own dominant
obstacle or be subjected to the effects of turbulence from structures resulting in an
unclear wind indication. The windsock should be illuminated for night operations.
Some installations may benefit from a second windsock to indicate a specific
difference between the local wind over the helideck and the free stream wind.
1.6
For character marking dimensions, where character bar width is not specified, use
15% of character height with 10% of character height between characters (extreme
right-hand edge of one character to extreme left-hand edge of next character) and
approximately 50% of character height between words.
2.1
The colour of the helideck should be dark green. The perimeter of the landing area
should be clearly marked with a white painted line 30 cm wide (see Figure 1). Nonslip materials should be used (see Chapter 3, paragraph 7.1).
NAME
9.3t
22
22
22
Figure 1
2.1.1
May 2012
Aluminium helidecks are in use throughout the offshore industry. Some of these are
a natural light grey colour and may present painting difficulties. The natural light grey
colour of aluminium may be acceptable in specific helideck applications where these
are agreed with the agency responsible for the certification of the helideck. This
should be discussed in the early design phase. In such cases the conspicuity of the
helideck markings may need to be enhanced by, for example, overlaying white
markings on a painted black background. Additionally, conspicuity of the yellow TD/
PM Circle may be enhanced by outlining the deck marking with a thin black line
(typically 10 cm).
Chapter 4
Page 2
CAP 437
2.2
The origin of the 210 OFS for approach and take-off as specified in Chapter 3 should
be marked on the helideck by a black chevron, each leg being 79 cm long and 10 cm
wide forming the angle in the manner shown in Figure 2. On minimum sized helidecks
where there is no room to place the chevron where indicated, the chevron marking,
but not the point of origin, may be displaced towards the D-circle centre. Where the
OFS is swung in accordance with the provision of Chapter 3 paragraph 6.4 this should
be reflected in the alignment of the chevron. The purpose of the chevron is to provide
visual guidance to the HLO so that he can ensure that the 210 OFS is clear of
obstructions before giving a helicopter clearance to land. The black chevron may be
painted on top of the (continuous) white perimeter line to achieve maximum clarity
for the helideck crew.
Obstacle sector
Black
White
30cm
10cm
15
15
79cm
1M
Perimeter Line
Marking
18
18
30cm
1M
D value
Perimeter Line
Marking (white)
90cm
18
Figure 2
2.3
The actual D-value of the helideck (see Chapter 3, paragraph 6.1) should be painted
on the helideck adjacent to, and where practical inboard of, the chevron in
alphanumeric symbols 10 cm high. Where, for an existing installation, a helideck has
been accepted which does not meet the normal minimum OFS requirements of 210,
the black chevron should represent the angle which has been accepted and this value
should be marked inboard of the chevron in a similar manner to the certificated
D-value. It is expected that new-builds will always comply in full with the requirement
to provide a minimum 210 OFS.
2.4
The helideck D-value should also be marked around the perimeter of the helideck in
characters no less than 90 cm high, in the manner shown in Figures 1 and 2 in a colour
contrasting (preferably white: avoid black or grey for night use) with the helideck
surface. The D-value should be expressed to the nearest whole number with 0.5
rounded down, e.g. 18.5 marked as 18 (see Chapter 3, Table 1).
NOTE:
May 2012
Helidecks designed specifically for AS332L2 and EC 225 helicopters, each having a
D-value of 19.5 m, should be rounded up to 20 in order to differentiate between
helidecks designed specifically for L1 models. For helidecks where the actual
D-value is less than 15.00 m, the height of the numbers may be reduced from 90 cm
to no less than 60 cm.
Chapter 4
Page 3
CAP 437
2.5
2.6
Figure 3
NOTE:
May 2012
Chapter 4
Page 4
CAP 437
2.7
0.75M
wide
4M
3M
Figure 4
2.8
Where the OFS has been swung in accordance with Chapter 3 paragraph 6.4 the
positioning of the TD/PM and H should comply with the normal unswung criteria.
However, the H should be orientated so that the bar is parallel to the bisector of the
swung sector.
2.9
May 2012
Chapter 4
Page 5
CAP 437
Yellow
1.0M
Yellow
Deck
Deck
White
Red
0.75M
3.0M
White
1.0M
4.0M
0.75M
0.5M
0.75M
45
Deck
Figure 5
Figure 6
NOTE:
May 2012
The position of the H and the orientation of the prohibited landing heading segment
will depend on the obstacle.
Chapter 4
Page 6
CAP 437
2.10
4m
Yellow
4m
Red
0.5m
Figure 7
NOTE:
2.11
Colours should conform with the following BS 381C (1996) standard or the equivalent
BS 4800 colour. White should conform to the RAL charts.
a) RED
BS 381C: 537 (Signal Red)
BS 4800: 04.E.53 (Poppy)
b) YELLOW
BS 381C: 309 (Canary Yellow)
BS 4800: 10.E.53 (Sunflower Yellow)
c) DARK GREEN
BS 381C: 267 (Deep Chrome Green)
BS 4800: 14.C.39 (Holly Green)
d) WHITE
RAL 9010 (Pure White)
RAL 9003 (Signal White)
May 2012
Chapter 4
Page 7
CAP 437
Lighting
NOTES: 1. The paragraphs below should be read in conjunction with Appendix C which
contains the specification for the full helideck lighting scheme comprising
perimeter lights, lit TD/PM Circle and lit heliport identification "H" marking. The
specification for each element is fully described in Appendix C with the overall
operational requirement detailed in paragraph 1 of the Appendix. The helideck
lighting scheme is intended to provide effective visual cues for a pilot throughout
the approach and landing manoeuvre at night. Starting with the initial acquisition
of the helideck, the lighting needs to enable a pilot to easily locate the position
of the helideck on the installation at long range on an often well lit offshore
structure. The lighting should then guide the helicopter to a point above the
landing area and then provide visual cues to assist with the touchdown.
2. The specification has an in-built assumption that the performance of the helideck
lighting system will not be diminished by any other lighting due to the relative
intensity, configuration or colour of other lighting sources on the installation or
vessel. Where other non-aeronautical ground lights have the potential to cause
confusion or to diminish or prevent the clear interpretation of helideck lighting
systems, it will be necessary for an installation or vessel operator to extinguish,
screen or otherwise modify these lights to ensure that the effectiveness of the
helideck lighting system is not compromised. This will include, but may not be
limited to, an assessment of the effect of general installation lighting on the
performance of the helideck lighting scheme. The CAA recommends that
installation and vessel operators give serious consideration to shielding high
intensity light sources (e.g. by fitting screens or louvers) from helicopters
approaching and landing, and maintaining a good colour contrast between the
helideck lighting and surrounding installation lighting. Particular attention should
be paid to the areas of the installation adjacent to the helideck.
3. The specification contained in Appendix C includes a facility to increase the
intensity of some elements of the helideck lighting to compensate for
installations or vessels with high levels of background lighting. The setting of the
intensity of the helideck lighting should be carried out in conjunction with the
helicopter operator as a once-off exercise following installation of the lighting,
and subsequently if required following changes to the lighting environment at
the installation or vessel. The intensity of the helideck lighting should not be
routinely changed, and in any event should not be altered without the
involvement and agreement of the helicopter operator.
3.1
February 2013
Chapter 4
Page 8
CAP 437
3.2
Where the declared D-value of the helideck is less than the physical helideck area, the
perimeter lights should be coincidental with the white perimeter marking and black
chevron and delineate the limit of the useable landing area so that, in unusual
circumstances where a helicopter touches down inboard of the TD/PM Circle, it can
land safely by reference to the perimeter lights on the 150 LOS inboard side of the
helideck without risk of the main rotor striking obstructions in this sector. By applying
the LOS clearances (given in Chapter 3, paragraphs 6.5 to 6.7) from the perimeter
marking and coincident lighting, adequate main rotor to obstruction separation should
be achieved for the worst-case helicopter intended to operate to the helideck.
3.3
In order to aid the visual task of final approach and hover and landing it is important
that adequate visual cues be provided. For use at night, this has previously been
achieved using floodlighting; however, these systems can adversely affect the visual
cueing environment by reducing the conspicuity of helideck perimeter lights during
the approach, and by causing glare and loss of pilots' night vision during the hover and
landing. Furthermore, floodlighting systems often fail to provide adequate illumination
of the centre of the landing area leading to the so-called 'black-hole effect'.
3.4
A new lighting scheme comprising a lit TD/PM Circle and a lit heliport identification
'H' marking has therefore been developed. This scheme, described in detail in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of Appendix C, has been clearly demonstrated to provide the
visual cues required by the pilot earlier on in the approach, and much more effectively
than floodlighting and without the disadvantages associated with floodlights such as
glare. The CAA has therefore replaced the traditional floodlighting systems with the
new offshore helideck lighting scheme meeting the specification given in Appendix C.
NOTES: 1. As a result of the G-REDU accident in February 2009, the Air Accidents
Investigation Branch (AAIB) has published Air Accident Report 1/2011 which
addresses a number of safety recommendations including Safety
Recommendation 2011-053 recommending the amendment of CAP 437 to
encourage operators of vessels and offshore installations equipped with
helidecks to adopt the new lighting standard presented as a final specification in
Appendix C.
2. The new lighting scheme has been developed to be compatible with helicopters
having wheeled undercarriages, this being the prevailing configuration on the
UKCS during the development of the specification and at the time of publication.
Although the design specifications detailed in Appendix C will ensure the
segments and subsections containing lighting elements are compliant with the
ICAO maximum obstacle height of 2.5 cm and likely to be able to withstand the
point loading presented by (typically) lighter skidded aircraft, compatibility should
be considered before operating skidded helicopters to helidecks fitted with the
new lighting. Due to the potential for raised fittings to induce dynamic rollover of
helicopters equipped with skids, it is important that, where the new lighting
scheme is installed on helidecks used by skid-fitted helicopters, the height of the
system (including any mounting arrangements) should be kept as low as
possible.
February 2013
Chapter 4
Page 9
CAP 437
3.5
Although no longer recommended for the provision of primary visual cueing, the CAA
has no objection to floodlighting systems conforming to the guidance contained in
Appendix G being retained for the purpose of providing a source of illumination for ondeck operations such as refuelling and passenger handling and, where required, for
lighting the installation name on the helideck surface or as a back-up to the new
lighting (see Note 2 below). Unless otherwise instructed by the aircrew the floodlights
should be switched off during the acquisition, approach to hover, landing and take-off
phases. In addition, particular care should be taken to maintain correct alignment to
ensure that floodlights do not cause dazzle or glare to pilots while either in-flight or
landed on the helideck. All floodlights should be capable of being switched on and off
at the pilot's request. The floodlighting controls should be accessible to, and
controlled by, the HLO or Radio Operator.
NOTES: 1. For some decks, especially NUIs, it may be beneficial to improve depth
perception by redeploying floodlighting to illuminate the main structure or 'legs'
of the platform.
2. Floodlighting may be retained as a temporary source of alternative helideck
lighting, e.g. in the event of guano rendering the new lighting ineffective on
some NUIs. It is the CAA's view that the guano problem should be addressed,
but it may nevertheless be desirable to retain Appendix G compliant floodlighting
as a temporary back-up on some installations.
3.6
February 2013
Chapter 4
Page 10
CAP 437
The light system should be integrated with platform safety systems such that it is
activated automatically in the event of a process upset.
Facilities should be provided for the HLO to manually switch on the system and/or
override automatic activation of the system.
The light system should have a response time to the full intensity specified not
exceeding three seconds at all times.
Facilities should be provided for resetting the system which, in the case of NUIs,
do not require a helicopter to land on the helideck.
The system should be designed so that no single failure will prevent the system
operating effectively. In the event that more than one light unit is used to meet the
flash rate requirement, a reduced flash frequency of at least 60 flashes per minute
is considered acceptable in the failed condition for a limited period.
The system and its constituent components should comply with all regulations
relevant to the installation.
Where the system and its constituent components are mounted in the 210 OFS
or in the first segment of the LOS, the height of the installed system should not
exceed 25 cm above deck level (or exceed 5 cm for any helideck where the D-value
is 16.00 m or less).
Where supplementary repeater lights are employed for the purposes of achieving
the on deck 360 coverage in azimuth, these should have a minimum intensity of
16 cd and a maximum intensity of 60 cd for all angles of azimuth and elevation.
3.7
Manufacturers are reminded that the minimum intensity specification stated above is
considered acceptable to meet the current operational requirements, which specify
a minimum meteorological visibility of 1400 m (0.75 NM). Development of offshore
approach aids which permit lower minima (e.g. differential GPS) will require a higher
intensity. Revised intensities are specified for the lowest anticipated meteorological
visibility of 900 m (0.5 NM) in CAA Paper 2008/01, Appendix A.
3.8
Installation/vessel emergency power supply design should include the landing area
lighting. Any failures or outages should be reported immediately to the helicopter
operator. The lighting should be fed from an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)
system.
4.1
Fixed obstacles which present a hazard to helicopters should be readily visible from
the air. If a paint scheme is necessary to enhance identification by day, alternate black
and white, black and yellow, or red and white bands are recommended, not less than
0.5 metres nor more than six metres wide. The colour should be chosen to contrast
with the background to the maximum extent. Paint colours should conform to the
references at paragraph 2.11.
4.2
February 2013
Chapter 4
Page 11
CAP 437
4.3
4.4
An omni-directional low intensity steady red obstruction light should be fitted to the
highest point of the installation. The light should conform to the specifications for a
low intensity obstacle (Group B) light described in CAP 168 Licensing of Aerodromes,
Chapter 4 and Table 6A.1, having a minimum intensity of 50 candelas for angles of
elevation between 0 and 15 degrees, and a minimum intensity of 200 candelas
between 5 and 8 degrees. Where it is not practicable to fit a light to the highest point
of the installation (e.g. on top of flare towers) the light should be fitted as near to the
extremity as possible.
4.5
In the particular case of jack-up units, it is recommended that when the tops of the
legs are the highest points on the installation, they should be fitted with
omni-directional low intensity steady red lights of the same intensity and
characteristics as described in paragraph 4.4. In addition the leg or legs adjacent to
the helideck should be fitted with intermediate low intensity steady red lights of the
same intensity and characteristics as described in paragraph 4.3 at 10-metre intervals
down to the level of the landing area. As an alternative the legs may be floodlit
providing the helicopter pilot is not dazzled.
4.6
Any ancillary structure within one kilometre of the landing area, and which is
significantly higher than it, should be similarly fitted with red lights.
4.7
Red lights should be arranged so that the locations of the objects which they
delineate are visible from all directions of approach above the landing area.
4.8
February 2013
Chapter 4
Page 12
CAP 437
Introduction
1.1
2.1
A key aspect in the successful design for providing an efficient, integrated helideck
rescue and fire fighting facility is a complete understanding of the circumstances in
which it may be expected to operate. A helicopter accident, which results in a fuel
spillage with wreckage and/or fire and smoke, has the capability to render some of
the equipment inventory unusable or preclude the use of some passenger escape
routes.
2.2
Delivery of fire fighting media to the landing area at the appropriate application rate
should be achieved in the quickest possible time. The CAA strongly recommends that
a delay of less than 15 seconds, measured from the time the system is activated to
actual production at the required application rate, should be the objective. The
operational objective should ensure that the system is able to bring under control a
helideck fire associated with a crashed helicopter within 30 seconds measured from
the time the system is producing foam at the required application rate for the range
of weather conditions prevalent for the UKCS.
NOTE:
A fire is deemed to be under control at the point when it becomes possible for the
occupants of the helicopter to be effectively rescued by trained fire-fighters.
2.3
2.4
Consideration should be given to the effects of the weather on static equipment. All
equipment forming part of the facility should be designed to withstand protracted
exposure to the elements or be protected from them. Where protection is the chosen
option, it should not prevent the equipment being brought into use quickly and
effectively (see paragraph 2.2). The effects of condensation on stored equipment
should be considered.
2.5
The minimum capacity of the foam production system will depend on the D-value of
the helideck, the foam application rate, discharge rates of installed equipment and the
expected duration of application. It is important to ensure that the capacity of the main
helideck fire pump is sufficient to guarantee that finished foam can be applied at the
appropriate induction ratio and application rate and for the minimum duration to the
whole of the landing area when all helideck monitors are being discharged
simultaneously.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 1
CAP 437
2.6
The application rate is dependent on the types of foam concentrate in use and the
types of foam application equipment selected. For fires involving aviation kerosene,
ICAO has produced a performance test which assesses and categorises the foam
concentrate. Most foam concentrate manufacturers will be able to advise on the
performance of their concentrate against this test. The CAA recommends that foam
concentrates compatible with seawater and meeting at least performance level B
are used. Level B foams should be applied at a minimum application rate of 6.0 litres
per square metre per minute.
2.6.1
2.7
Given the remote location of helidecks the overall capacity of the foam system should
exceed that necessary for initial extinction of any fire. Five minutes discharge
capability is generally considered by the CAA to be reasonable.
2.7.1
2.8
2.9
Not all fires are capable of being accessed by monitors and on some occasions the
use of monitors may endanger passengers. Therefore, in addition to a fixed foam
system monitor, there should be the ability to deploy at least two deliveries with
hand-controlled foam branch pipes for the application of aspirated foam at a minimum
rate of 225 litres/min through each hose line. A single hose line, capable of delivering
aspirated foam at a minimum application rate of 225 litres/min, may be acceptable
where it is demonstrated that the hose line is of sufficient length, and the hydrant
system of sufficient operating pressure, to ensure the effective application of foam
to any part of the landing area irrespective of wind strength or direction. The hose
line(s) provided should be capable of being fitted with a branch pipe capable of
applying water in the form of a jet or spray pattern for cooling, or for specific fire
fighting tactics. Where a Deck Integrated Fire Fighting System (DIFFS) capable of
delivering foam and/or seawater in a spray pattern to the whole of the landing area
(see paragraphs 2.10 to 2.12 and Note below) is selected in lieu of an FMS, the
provision of additional hand-controlled foam branch pipes may not be necessary to
address any residual fire situation. Instead any residual fire may be tackled with the
use of hand-held extinguishers (see paragraph 4).
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 2
CAP 437
2.10
2.11
The precise number and layout of pop-up nozzles will be dependent on the specific
helideck design, particularly the dimensions of the critical area. However, nozzles
should not be located adjacent to helideck egress points as this may hamper quick
access to the helideck by trained rescue crews and/or impede occupants of the
helicopter escaping to a safe place beyond the helideck. Notwithstanding this, the
number and layout of nozzles should be sufficient to provide an effective spray
distribution of foam over the entire landing area with a suitable overlap of the
horizontal element of the spray pattern from each nozzle assuming calm wind
conditions. It is recognised in meeting the objective for the average (theoretical)
application rate specified in paragraph 2.10 for performance level B or C foams that
there may be some areas of the helideck, particularly where the spray patterns of
nozzles significantly overlap, where the average (theoretical) application rate is
exceeded in practice. Conversely for other areas of the helideck the application rate
in practice may fall below the average (theoretical) application rate specified in
paragraph 2.10. This is acceptable provided that the actual application rate achieved
for any portion of the landing area does not fall below two-thirds of the rates specified
in paragraph 2.10 for the critical area calculation.
NOTE:
2.12
In a similar way to where an FMS is provided (see paragraph 2.3), the performance
specification for a DIFFS needs to consider the likelihood that one or more of the popup nozzles may be rendered ineffective by the impact of a helicopter on the helideck.
Any local damage to the helideck, nozzles and distribution system caused by a
helicopter crash should not unduly hinder the system's ability to deal effectively with
a fire situation. To this end a DIFFS supplier should be able to verify that the system
remains fit for purpose, in being able to bring a helideck fire associated with a crashed
helicopter "under control" within 30 seconds measured from the time the system is
producing foam at the required application rate for the range of weather conditions
prevalent for the UKCS (see also paragraph 2.2).
2.13
If life saving opportunities are to be maximised it is essential that all equipment should
be ready for immediate use on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the helideck whenever
helicopter operations are being conducted. All equipment should be located at points
having immediate access to the landing area. The location of the storage facilities
should be clearly indicated.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 3
CAP 437
3.1
Mixing of different concentrates in the same tank, i.e. different either in make or
strength, is generally unacceptable. Many different strengths of concentrate are on
the market. Any decision regarding selection should take account of the design
characteristics of the foam system. It is important to ensure that foam containers and
tanks are correctly labelled.
3.2
Induction equipment ensures that water and foam concentrate are mixed in the
correct proportions. Settings of adjustable inductors, if installed, should correspond
with strength of concentrate in use.
3.3
All parts of the foam production system, including the finished foam, should be tested
by a competent person on commissioning and annually thereafter. The tests should
assess the performance of the system against original design expectations while
ensuring compliance with any relevant pollution regulations. Further information for
testing of helideck foam production systems is stated in HSE OIS 6/2011, issued
August 2011.
Complementary Media
4.1
While foam is considered the principal medium for dealing with fires involving fuel
spillages, the wide variety of fire incidents likely to be encountered during helicopter
operations e.g. engine, avionic bays, transmission areas, hydraulics may require
the provision of more than one type of complementary agent. Dry powder and
gaseous agents are generally considered acceptable for this task. The
complementary agents selected should comply with the appropriate specifications of
the ISO. Systems should be capable of delivering the agents through equipment
which will ensure effective application.
NOTE:
Halon extinguishing agents are no longer specified for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2, have replaced them. The effectiveness of CO2 is accepted as
being half that of halon.
4.2
The CAA recommends the use of dry powder as the primary complementary agent.
The minimum total capacity should be 45 kg delivered from one or two extinguishers.
The dry powder system should have the capacity to deliver the agent anywhere on
the landing area and the discharge rate of the agent should be selected for optimum
effectiveness of the agent. Containers of sufficient capacity to allow continuous and
sufficient application of the agent should be provided.
4.3
The CAA recommends the use of a gaseous agent in addition to the use of dry
powder as the primary complementary agent. Therefore, in addition to dry powder
specified at paragraph 4.2, there should be a quantity of gaseous agent provided with
a suitable applicator for use on engine fires. The appropriate minimum quantity
delivered from one or two extinguishers is 18 kg. The discharge rate of the agent
should be selected for optimum effectiveness of the agent. Due regard should be
paid to the requirement to deliver gaseous agents to the seat of the fire at the
recommended discharge rate. Because of the weather conditions prevalent on the
UKCS, all complementary agents could be adversely affected during application and
training evolutions should take this into account.
4.4
All offshore helicopters have integral engine fire protection systems (predominantly
halon) and it is therefore considered that provision of foam as the principal agent plus
suitable water/foam branch lines plus sufficient levels of dry powder with a quantity
of secondary gaseous agent will form the core of the fire extinguishing system. It
should be borne in mind that none of the complementary agents listed will offer any
post-fire security/control.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 4
CAP 437
4.5
All applicators are to be fitted with a mechanism which allows them to be hand
controlled.
4.6
4.7
The complementary agents should be sited so that they are readily available at all
times.
4.8
4.9
5.1
In the case of newbuild NUIs, serious consideration should be given to the selection
and provision of foam as the principal agent. For an NUI, where helideck Rescue and
Fire Fighting (RFF) equipment will be unattended during certain helicopter
movements, the pressurised discharge of foam through a manually operated fixed
monitor system is not recommended. For installations which are at times unattended
the effective delivery of foam to the whole of the landing area is probably best
achieved by means of a DIFFS. See paragraphs 2.10 to 2.12.
5.2
For NUIs the CAA may also consider other combination solutions where these can
be demonstrated to be effective in dealing with a running fuel fire. This may permit,
for example, the selection of a seawater-only DIFFS used in tandem with a passive
fire-retarding system demonstrated to be capable of removing significant quantities
of unburned fuel from the surface of the helideck in the event of a fuel spill from a
ruptured aircraft tank.
5.3
DIFFS on NUIs should be integrated with platform safety systems such that pop-up
nozzles are activated automatically in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the
helideck where a Post-Crash Fire (PCF) is a foreseeable outcome. The overall design
of a DIFFS should incorporate a method of fire detection and be configured to avoid
spurious activation. It should be capable of manual over-ride by the HLO and from the
mother installation or from an onshore control room. Similar to a DIFFS provided for
a Permanently Attended Installation (PAI) or vessel, a DIFFS provided on an NUI
needs to consider the eventuality that one or more nozzles may be rendered
ineffective by, for example, a crash. The basic performance assumptions stated in
paragraphs 2.10 to 2.12 should also apply for a DIFFS located on an NUI.
6.1
6.2
The mixing of different types of foam concentrate may cause serious sludging and
possible malfunctioning of foam production systems. Unless evidence to the contrary
is available it should be assumed that different types are incompatible. In these
circumstances it is essential that the tank(s), pipework and pump (if fitted) are
thoroughly cleaned and flushed prior to the new concentrate being introduced.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 5
CAP 437
6.3
Consideration should be given to the provision of reserve stocks for use in training,
testing and recovery from emergency use.
Rescue Equipment
7.1
In some circumstances, lives may be lost if simple ancillary rescue equipment is not
readily available.
7.2
The CAA strongly recommends the provision of at least the following equipment.
Sizes of equipment are not detailed but should be appropriate for the types of
helicopter expected to use the facility.
Table 1
Rescue Equipment
Helicopter RFF Category
H1/H2
H3
Adjustable wrench
Cutters, bolt
Crowbar, large
Ladder (two-piece)*
**
**
**
**
*
**
7.3
Personnel Levels
8.1
The facility should have sufficient trained fire fighting personnel immediately available
whenever aircraft movements are taking place. They should be deployed in such a
way as to allow the appropriate fire fighting and rescue systems to be operated
efficiently and to maximum advantage so that any helideck incident can be managed
effectively. The HLO should be readily identifiable to the helicopter crew as the
person in charge of helideck operations. The preferred method of identification is a
brightly coloured HLO tabard. For guidance on helideck crew composition refer to
the OGUK Guidelines for the Management of Aviation Operations.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 6
CAP 437
9.1
All responding rescue and fire fighting personnel should be provided with appropriate
PPE to allow them to carry out their duties in an effective manner.
9.2
9.3
For the selection of appropriate PPE account should be taken of the Provision and Use
of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) and the Personal Protective Equipment at
Work Regulations (PPEWR), which require equipment to be suitable and safe for
intended use, maintained in a safe condition and (where appropriate) inspected to
ensure it remains fit for purpose. In addition, equipment should only be used by
personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE
should be accompanied by suitable safety measures (e.g. protective devices,
markings and warnings). Appropriate PPE should be determined through a process of
risk assessment.
9.4
A responsible person(s) should be appointed to ensure that all PPE is installed, stored,
used, checked and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
10
Training
10.1
If they are to effectively utilise the equipment provided, all personnel assigned to RFF
duties on the helideck should be fully trained to carry out their duties to ensure
competence in role and task. The CAA recommends that personnel attend an
established helicopter fire fighting course.
10.2
In addition, regular training in the use of all RFF equipment, helicopter familiarisation
and rescue tactics and techniques should be carried out. Correct selection and use of
principal and complementary media for specific types of incident should form an
integral part of personnel training.
11
Emergency Procedures
11.1
The installation or vessel emergency procedures manual should specify the actions
to be taken in the event of an emergency involving a helicopter on or near the
installation or vessel. Exercises designed specifically to test these procedures and the
effectiveness of the fire fighting teams should take place at regular intervals.
12
Further Advice
12.1
Advice is available from the CAAs Aerodrome Standards Department regarding the
choice and specification of fire extinguishing agents.
May 2012
Chapter 5
Page 7
CAP 437
1.1
2.1
Helideck Movement
3.1
Floating installations and vessels experience dynamic motions due to wave action
which represent a potential hazard to helicopter operations. Operational limitations
are therefore set by the helicopter operators which are promulgated in the HLL and
incorporated in their Operations Manuals. Helideck downtime due to excessive deck
motion can be minimised by careful consideration of the location of the helideck on
the installation or vessel at the design stage. Guidance on helideck location and how
to assess the impact of the resulting helideck motion on operability is presented in
CAA Paper 2008/03 Helideck Design Considerations Environmental Effects which
is available on the Publications section of the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk. It is
strongly recommended that mobile installation and vessel designers consult CAA
Paper 2008/03 at the earliest possible stage of the design process.
3.2
The helideck approval will be related to the helicopter operators Operations Manual
limitations regarding the movement of the helideck in pitch and roll, helideck
inclination, Significant Heave Rate (SHR) and vessel heading. It is necessary for
details of these motions to be recorded by the vessels Helideck Motion System
(HMS) and reported as part of the overall Offshore Weather Report (see Appendix E)
prior to, and during, all helicopter movements. A colour indication should be displayed
on the HMS to indicate whether the deck is 'in limits' for approach to land (BLUE (or
GREEN) = deck safe for landing) or whether 'out of limits' for approach to land (RED =
nil landing).
3.3
Pitch and roll reports to helicopters should include values, in degrees, about both axes
of the true vertical datum (i.e. relative to the true horizon) and be expressed in relation
to the vessels heading. Roll should be expressed in terms of left and right; pitch
should be expressed in terms of up and down; helideck inclination is the angle
measured in degrees between the absolute horizon and the plane of the helideck.
SHR, being twice the Root Mean Square (RMS) heave rate measured over a
20-minute period, should be reported in metres per second. Values of pitch and roll,
helideck inclination and SHR should be reported to one decimal place.
May 2012
Chapter 6
Page 1
CAP 437
3.3.1
The helicopter pilot is concerned, in order to make vital safety decisions, with the
amount of slope on, and the rate of movement of, the helideck surface. It is
therefore important that reported values are only related to the true vertical and do
not relate to any false datum (i.e. a list) created, for example, by anchor patterns or
displacement.
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
Current research has indicated that the likelihood of a helicopter tipping or sliding on
a moving helideck is directly related to helideck accelerations and to the prevailing
wind conditions. It is therefore intended that future requirements will introduce
additional measuring and reporting criteria in the form of a Motion Severity Index
(MSI) and a Wind Severity Index (WSI). The CAA is currently completing research into
the definition of these parameters, and how operating limits in terms of these
parameters should be set. A CAA paper fully describing the new scheme will be
published when the research and in-service trials have been completed (estimated
later in 2012). In the meantime, CAA Paper 2008/03 contains a top-level summary of
the scheme in its trials form.
3.5
In earlier editions of CAP 437 it was noted that a small number of helideck motion
reports to pilots were still based on visual estimations. While this practice is now very
rare, it is nevertheless emphasised that this is not considered to be an acceptable way
of obtaining vital safety information. It is therefore strongly recommended that all
May 2012
Chapter 6
Page 2
CAP 437
moving helidecks are equipped with electronic motion-sensing systems which will
not only facilitate implementation of the new scheme mentioned in paragraph 3.4, but
also produce accurate pitch and roll, helideck inclination and SHR information to cater
for current reporting requirements.
Meteorological Information
(Relevant references are listed in Appendix B.)
(Additional guidance is listed in Appendix E.)
4.1
4.2
Meteorological Observations
In addition to the data covered by paragraph 3, it is strongly recommended that
installations are provided with an automated means of ascertaining the following
meteorological information at all times:
a) wind speed and direction (including variations in direction);
b) air temperature and dew point temperature;
c) QNH and, where applicable, QFE;
d) cloud amount and height of base (Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL));
e) visibility; and
f) present weather.
4.2.1
4.3
February 2013
Chapter 6
Page 3
CAP 437
4.3.1
4.3.2
Radio Messages
A standard radio message should be passed to the helicopter operator which contains
information on the helideck weather in a clear and unambiguous format. When
passing weather information to flight crews it is recommended that the information
be consistently sent in a standard order as detailed in CAP 413 Radiotelephony
Manual and in the OGUK Guidelines for the Management of Aviation Operations.
This message will usually be sufficient to enable the helicopter crew to make
informed safety decisions. Should the helicopter crew require other weather
information or amplification of the standard message they will request it.
4.4
4.4.1
4.5
February 2013
Chapter 6
Page 4
CAP 437
4.6
5.1
Mobile installations and support vessels with helidecks may be positioned adjacent
to other installations so that mutual interference/overlap of obstacle protected
surfaces occur. Also on some installations there may be more than one helideck
which may result in a confliction of obstacle protected surfaces.
5.2
Where there is confliction as mentioned above, within the OFS and/or falling gradient
out to a distance that will allow for both an unobstructed departure path and safe
clearance for obstacles below the helideck in the event of an engine failure for the
type of helicopter the helideck is intended to serve (see also Glossary of Terms. Note:
for helicopters operated in Performance Class 1 or 2 the horizontal extent of this
distance from the helideck will be based upon the one-engine inoperative capability
of the helicopter type to be used), simultaneous operation of two helicopter landing
areas is not to take place without prior consultation with the helicopter operator. It is
possible, depending upon the distance between landing areas and the operational
conditions which may pertain, that simultaneous operations can be permitted but
suitable arrangements for notification of helicopter crews and other safety
precautions will need to be established. In this context, flotels will be regarded in the
same way as any other mobile installation which may cause mutual interference with
the parent installation approach and take-off sector. For a detailed treatment of this
subject readers are recommended to refer to the OGUK Guidelines for the
Management of Aviation Operations. See also Chapter 3 which addresses issues
from the perspective of the impact of environmental effects on helideck operations.
6.1
Cranes can adversely distract pilots attention during helicopter approach and take-off
from the helideck as well as infringe fixed obstacle protected surfaces. Therefore it is
essential that when helicopter movements take place (5 minutes) crane work
ceases and jibs, A frames, etc. are positioned clear of the obstacle protected
surfaces and flight paths.
6.2
The HLO should be responsible for the control of cranes in preparation for and during
helicopter operations.
General Precautions
7.1
7.2
May 2012
Chapter 6
Page 5
CAP 437
areas are type-specific but, in general, the approved routes to and from the helicopter
are at the 24 oclock and 810 oclock positions. Avoidance of the 12 oclock (low
rotor profile helicopters) and 6 oclock (tail rotor danger areas) positions should be
maintained.
7.3
Personnel should not approach the helicopter while the helicopter anti-collision
(rotating/flashing) beacons are operating. In the offshore environment, the helideck
should be kept clear of all personnel while anti-collision lights are on.
8.1
The maximum helicopter mass and D-value for which the deck has been designed
and the maximum size and weight of helicopter for which the installation is certified
should be included in the Operations Manual. The extent of the obstacle-free area
should also be stated and reference made to any helideck operating limitation
imposed by helicopter operators as a result of any non-compliance. Non-compliances
should also be listed.
9.1
Provision should be made for equipment needed for use in connection with helicopter
operations including:
a) chocks and tie-down strops/ropes (strops are preferable);
b) heavy-duty, calibrated, accurate scales for passenger baggage and freight
weighing;
c) a suitable power source for starting helicopters if helicopter shut-down is seen as
an operational requirement; and
d) equipment for clearing the helicopter landing area of snow and ice and other
contaminants.
9.2
9.3
9.4
May 2012
Chapter 6
Page 6
CAP 437
9.5
Offshore Radio Operators, HLOs, Helideck Assistants and other persons who operate
VHF aeronautical radio equipment are required to hold a UK CAA Offshore
Aeronautical Radio Station Operators Certificate of Competence. Further information
can be found in CAP 452 'Aeronautical Radio Station Operator's Guide' and CAP 413
'Radiotelephony Manual' which can be found on the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk/
cap452 and www.caa.co.uk/cap413.
9.6
Offshore fixed installations, mobile installations and vessels which have aeronautical
radio equipment and/or aeronautical Non-Directional Radio Beacons (NDBs) installed
on them and are operating in UK Internal Waters, UK Territorial Waters or within the
limits of the UKCS are required to hold a valid Wireless Telegraphy (WT) Act licence
and Air Navigation Order (ANO) approval. The UK CAA Form SRG 1417 'Application
to Establish or Change an Aeronautical Ground Radio Station' may be used to apply
for both the WT Act licence and ANO approval and can be found on the CAA website
at www.caa.co.uk/srg1417.
9.7
May 2012
Chapter 6
Page 7
CAP 437
General
1.1
The contents of this chapter are intended as general advice/best practice for the
design and construction requirements for helicopter fuelling systems intended for
use on offshore installations and vessels. The information has been compiled by
OGUK in consultation with the UK offshore oil and gas industry and specialist fuelling
companies.
1.2
This chapter has been prepared with the relevant content of CAP 748 Aircraft Fuelling
and Fuel Installation Management in mind. However, supplementary detailed
information can be obtained from CAP 748 and aviation fuel suppliers. Where the
reader is referred to other standards or alternative guidance, the reference
documents used should always be checked by the reader to ensure they are up-todate and reflect current best practice.
Product Identification
2.1
It is essential to ensure at all times that aviation fuel delivered to helicopters from
offshore installations and vessels is of the highest quality. A major contributor toward
ensuring that fuel quality is maintained and contamination is prevented is to provide
clear and unambiguous product identification on all system components and pipelines
denoting the fuel type (e.g. Jet A-1) following the standard aviation convention for
markings and colour code. Details can be found in API/IP Standard 1542 Identification
markings for dedicated aviation fuel manufacturing and distribution facilities, airport
storage and mobile fuelling equipment. The correct identification markings should
initially be applied during system manufacture and routinely checked for clarity during
subsequent maintenance inspections.
3.1
It should be noted that an offshore fuelling system may vary according to the
particular application for which it was designed. Nevertheless the elements of all
offshore fuelling systems are basically the same and generally include:
a) transit tanks;
b) static storage facilities and, if installed, a sample reclaim tank (see Note);
c) a pumping system; and
d) a delivery system.
NOTE:
In some systems where built-in static storage tanks are not provided, delivery of fuel
directly to the aircraft from transit tanks is acceptable. In this case, sample reclaim
tanks should not be used.
3.2
3.2.1
When preparing a layout design for aviation fuelling systems on offshore installations
and vessels it is important to make provisions for suitable segregation and bunding of
the areas set aside for the tankage and delivery system. Facilities for containing
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 1
CAP 437
possible fuel leakage and providing fire control should be given full and proper
consideration, along with adequate protection from potential dropped objects (e.g.
due to crane operations).
3.3
Transit Tanks
3.3.1
3.3.2
Tanks may be constructed from stainless steel or mild steel. If mild steel is used, then
the tanks should be lined with suitable fuel-resistant epoxy lining.
3.3.3
The tanks should be encased in a robust steel cage with four main lifting eyes and,
where possible, stainless steel fasteners in conjunction with stainless steel fittings
should be used. The tank frame should incorporate cross-members to provide an
integral ladder access to the tank top. When horizontal vessels are mounted in the
transit frame there should be a tank centre line slope towards a small sump. Vertical
vessels should have dished ends providing adequate drainage towards the sump.
This slope should be at least 1 in 30, although 1 in 25 is preferred.
3.3.4
Tanks should be clearly and permanently marked on the identification plate with the
tank capacity and tank serial number. Tanks should also be clearly marked with the
date of the last lifting gear inspection and initial/last IMDG test.
3.3.5
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 2
CAP 437
helifuel tanks. All component parts, e.g. tank, frame etc., should be properly
bonded before being painted. Whether the tank barrel is painted yellow or
otherwise, Jet A-1 Transit Tanks should be correctly identified by placing clear
product identification markings on all sides, particularly above the tank filling and
dispensing attachment.
i) Tank Shell Internal Finish. The internal finish should be sufficiently smooth to
ensure that liquid run-off is clean and allow the tank to be wiped down during
internal inspections without dragging threads or lint from the cleaning cloth.
3.4
3.4.1
Where static storage tanks are provided they should be constructed to suitable
standards. Acceptable standards include ASME VIII and BS 5500 Categories I, II and
III. The tank should be cylindrical and mounted with an obstacle free centre line slope
(e.g. no baffles fitted) to a small sump. This slope should be at least 1 in 30, although
1 in 25 is preferred.
3.4.2
Tanks may be constructed from stainless steel or mild steel. If mild steel is used, then
the tanks should be lined with a suitable white coloured, fuel-resistant epoxy surface
finish.
3.4.3
The sump should be fitted with a sample line which has a double block valve
arrangement and it should have a captive dustcap on the end to prevent the ingress
of dirt or moisture.
3.4.4
3.4.5
Tanks should be clearly and permanently marked on the identification plate with the
tank capacity and tank serial number.
3.4.6
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 3
CAP 437
h) Tank Shell Outer Surface Finish. The static storage tank shell should be suitably
primed and then finished in safety yellow (BS 4800, Type 08.E.51). Where the tank
shell is fabricated from stainless steel it may remain unpainted. Safety yellow is not
mandatory but has been generally accepted for helifuel tanks. All component parts
should be properly bonded before being painted. Whether the tank barrel is
painted yellow or otherwise, Jet A-1 static storage tanks should be correctly
identified by placing clear product identification markings on all sides, particularly
above the tank filling and dispensing attachment.
i) Tank Shell Inner Surface Finish. The internal finish should be sufficiently smooth
to ensure that liquid run-off is clean and allow the tank to be wiped down during
internal inspections without dragging threads or lint from the cleaning cloth.
3.5
3.5.1
If the fuelling system includes a static storage tank, water-free and sediment-free fuel
samples can be disposed of into a dedicated reclaim tank (if installed). The sample
reclaim tank should be equipped with a removable 100 mesh strainer at the fill point,
a lockable sealing lid, a conical base with a sample point at the sump and a return line
(fitted with a check valve) to the storage tank via an EI 1581 approved filter water
separator.
3.5.2
Where the system does not include a functioning static storage tank and fuelling is
direct from transit tanks, if a sample reclaim tank has been installed fuel samples may
be drained to it. However, the reclaim tank contents should only be decanted directly
from the sample point into drums and then properly disposed of.
3.6
Delivery System
3.6.1
The delivery system to transfer fuel from storage tanks to the aircraft should include
the following components:
a) Pump. Where practicable, systems should be designed to incorporate a twin
pump skid in order to provide redundancy should one pump fail in service. This may
not always be possible due to space restrictions. The pumps should be electrically
or air driven, centrifugal or positive displacement types with a head and flow rate
suited to the particular installation. The pump(s) should be able to deliver up to
225 litres (50 imperial gallons) per minute under normal flow conditions. A remote
start/stop control should be provided on or immediately close to the helideck and
close to the hose storage location (in a position where the operator is able to view
the whole fuelling operation). Additionally there should be a local emergency stop
control adjacent to the pump(s).
NOTE: Hand pumps should not be incorporated in refuelling system design and
should be removed from existing systems where fitted. Lack of use over
long periods of time may result in deterioration of the hand pumps'
internal components, causing them to become a potential source of
system contamination.
b) Pump and Aircraft Bonding Safety Systems. The pumping system should be
equipped with an automatically switched, flashing pump-running warning beacon
that is visible from the helideck to clearly show that the fuel delivery pumps are
running. Ideally, the flashing beacon should be coloured amber to distinguish it
from other helideck lighting and to ensure it is visible against the general
installation lighting. The colour red should not be used. In addition, there should be
an automatic interlock (e.g. an earth proving unit) that prevents the pump from
running and the pump-running warning flashing until such time as there is positive
earth bonding established between the aircraft and the refuelling system. For
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 4
CAP 437
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 5
CAP 437
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 6
CAP 437
to the aircraft at the aircraft end. In the event that a helicopter has to lift off quickly,
a quick-release mechanism should be provided by fitting a 'breakaway device' into
the bonding cable, a short distance away from the clamp at the helicopter end. The
electrical resistance between the end connection and the system pipework should
not be more than 0.5 ohms. The selected length of bonding cable provided should
be consistent with easily reaching the helicopter refuelling points when the aircraft
is correctly positioned on the helideck.
g) Fuelling Nozzle. Fuel delivery to the aircraft may be either by gravity (overwing)
or pressure (underwing) refuelling. It is operationally advantageous to have the
ability to refuel by either means to suit the aircraft type using the helideck:
i) Gravity The nozzle should be 38 mm (1) spout diameter fitted with
100 mesh strainer. Suitable types include the EMCO G180-GRTB refuelling
nozzle.
ii) Pressure For pressure refuelling the coupling should be 63.5 mm (2) with
100 mesh strainer and quick disconnect. A Carter or Avery Hardoll pressure
nozzle with regulator/surge control (maximum 241.3 kPa (35 psi)) should be
used.
iii) Pressure Gravity To meet both requirements, a pressure nozzle can be fitted
to the hose end. A separate short length of hose fitted with an adaptor (to fit the
pressure nozzle) and with the gravity nozzle attached can be used as required.
This arrangement gives the flexibility to provide direct pressure refuelling or,
with the extension hose attached, a means of providing gravity refuelling.
Alternatively a GTP coupler may be used.
h) Weather Protection. The delivery system, including hoses and nozzles, should be
equipped with adequate weather protection to prevent deterioration of hoses and
ingress of dust and water into the nozzles.
May 2012
Chapter 7
Page 7
CAP 437
General
1.1
This chapter gives general advice and best practice on the necessary requirements
for fuelling system maintenance and the fuelling of helicopters on offshore
installations and vessels. It includes recommended procedures for the filling of transit
tanks, the transfer of fuel from transit tanks to static storage and the refuelling of
aircraft from static storage.
1.2
Fuel storage, handling and quality control are key elements for ensuring, at all times,
the safety of aircraft in flight. For this reason, personnel assigned supervisory and
operating responsibilities should be certified as properly trained and competent to
undertake systems maintenance, inspection and fuelling of aircraft.
1.3
The information in this chapter has been prepared by OGUK to be consistent with the
relevant content of CAP 748 Aircraft Fuelling and Fuel Installation Management, and
in consultation with the offshore oil and gas industry and aviation specialists. If
required, supplementary information may be obtained from CAP 748 and the
specialist aviation fuel suppliers. The reader should ensure when referring to the best
practice standards given in the text that they are current and embody the latest
amendments.
1.4
Alternative procedures from other recognised national sources may be used where
users can satisfy themselves that the alternative is adequate for the purpose, and
achieves equivalence, considering particularly the hostile conditions to which the
systems may be subjected and the vital and overriding importance of a supply of clean
fuel.
NOTE:
2.1
Throughout the critical processes of aviation fuel system maintenance and fuelling
operations, routine fuel sampling is required to ensure that delivered fuel is
scrupulously clean and free from any contamination that may enter the aircraft fuel
tanks which could ultimately result in engine malfunctions. The requirement to
distinguish between colours during fuel sample testing (e.g. water detector tests)
should be taken into account when selecting personnel for this task. The condition of
colour blindness could potentially cause erroneous results.
2.2
2.2.1
Fuel samples drawn from transit/static storage tanks and the fuel delivery system
during daily and weekly tests should be retained in appropriate containers for
specified periods. The sample containers should be kept locked in a secure, suitably
constructed light-excluding store and kept away from sunlight until they are disposed
of (aviation fuel is affected by UV light).
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 1
CAP 437
2.2.2
Only scrupulously clean, standard four-litre clear glass sampling jars should be used
for taking fuel samples. It is strongly recommended that they are also used for initial
storage. Supplementary items such as buckets and funnels, fitted with earth cable
and clamp, should ideally be manufactured from stainless steel and, to prevent
sample contamination, they should be scrupulously cleaned before each use.
2.2.3
It is recommended that the fuel samples are no longer kept in five-litre International
Air Transport Association (IATA) lacquer-lined sample cans because their design
prevents scrupulous cleaning and visual confirmation of removal of all sources of
contamination (e.g. trace sediments) prior to re-use. Sediments trapped in IATA cans
can result in highly inaccurate representations of drawn fuel samples when submitted
for laboratory analysis, in the event of an aircraft incident where fuel is a suspected
causal factor.
2.2.4
When drawn fuel samples are requested as evidence for analysis, the appropriate
samples should be decanted from glass sample jars into unused, purpose-made IATA
sample cans for transportation.
2.3
Fuel Sampling
2.3.1
Fuel samples taken from any aviation fuelling system should be the correct colour,
clear, bright and free from solid matter. They should also be checked for dissolved
water by using a syringe and water detection capsule.
2.3.2
Filter vessel and hose end samples should be taken under pump pressure.
2.3.3
Checking for fuel quality should be carried out whilst making observations in the
following manner:
a) Samples should be drawn at full flush into scrupulously clean, clear glass sample
jars (four litre capacity).
b) The fuel should be of the correct colour, visually clear, bright and free from solid
matter and free and dissolved water. (Jet A-1 may vary from colourless to straw
colour.)
c) Free water will appear as droplets on the sides, or bulk water on the bottom, of the
sample jar.
d) Suspended water will appear as a cloud or haze.
e) Solid matter is usually made up of small amounts of dust, rust, scale etc.
suspended in the fuel or settled out on the jar bottom. When testing for dirt, swirl
the sample to form a vortex, any dirt present will concentrate at the centre of the
vortex making it more readily visible.
f) Testing for dissolved water should be done with a syringe and proprietary water
detector capsule (e.g. Shell type or an approved alternative). Fit a capsule to the
syringe, immerse in fuel and immediately draw a 5 ml fuel sample into the syringe.
If the capsule is withdrawn from the fuel and there is less than 5 ml in the syringe,
the capsule should be discarded and the test repeated using a new capsule.
Examine the capsule for any colour change. If there is any colour change the fuel
should be rejected.
Capsules should be kept tightly sealed in their container when not in use. Capsule
tubes are marked with the relevant expiry date and capsules should be used before
the end of the month shown on the container. Capsules should not be re-used.
NOTE:
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 2
CAP 437
2.4
2.4.1
The purpose of retaining selected fuel samples during the handling processes is to
provide proof of fuel quality when delivered to an aircraft.
2.4.2
In the event of an aircraft incident where fuel may be considered to be a causal factor
retained fuel samples will subsequently be requested by the helicopter operator to
support technical investigations.
2.4.3
The following table summarises the minimum recommended fuel sampling and
retention requirements for offshore helicopter operations.
No.
May 2012
Sample
Transit tanks.
Filling onshore.
Transit tanks.
Within 24 hours of
placement in a bunded
storage area and weekly
thereafter until tank
becomes next on-line.
24 hours.
Transfer filters.
Transit tanks.
24 hours.
48 hours.
Delivery filter
separator and filter
monitor.
10
Chapter 8
Page 3
CAP 437
2.5
2.5.1
Before transfer of fuel takes place from a sample reclaim tank to bulk storage, the
reclaim tank should be sampled to ensure the fuel is in good condition.
2.5.2
Any samples taken prior to transfer should not be returned until transfer from the
sample reclaim tank to the bulk tank has been completed, because this could stir up
contaminants on the bottom of the vessel. After each transfer, the residue in the
bottom of the vessel should be fully drained and the recovery tank cleaned.
2.5.3
The transfer water separator should also be sampled under pump pressure before the
storage tank inlet valve is opened, to ensure that no contamination is present in the
filter vessel. Any contaminated samples should be disposed of in a suitable container.
3.1
3.2
Particularly in the UK, responsible bodies within the offshore oil and gas and aviation
industries have developed maintenance regimes and inspection cycles to suit their
specific operations. There may therefore appear to be anomalies between different
source guidance on filter element replacement periodicity, hose inspection and
replacement periodicity, static storage tank inspection periodicity and bonding lead
continuity checks.
3.3
The various components of fuelling systems are listed with their recommended
servicing requirements in the following paragraphs and tables.
3.4
Transit Tanks
3.4.1
All transit tanks should be subject to a trip examination each time the tank is filled
and, in addition, their condition should be checked weekly. Six-monthly and
12-monthly inspections should be carried out on all lined carbon steel tanks. However,
for stainless steel tanks, the inspections can be combined at 12-monthly intervals.
a) Trip Inspection
Each time a transit tank is offered for refilling the following items should be
checked:
No.
May 2012
Items
Activity
i)
Tank Shell
ii)
Filling/discharge and
sampling points
iii)
iv)
v)
Tank identification
Check that serial number and contentsidentifying label are properly displayed.
vi)
Tank certificate
Chapter 8
Page 4
CAP 437
b) Weekly Inspection
Each transit tank whether it is full or empty, onshore or offshore, should be given
a weekly inspection similar to the trip inspection at paragraph 3.4.1(a) to ensure
that the tank remains serviceable and fit for purpose. The weekly inspection should
primarily be for damage and leakage. The completion of this check should be
signed for on the Serviceability Report (see paragraph 10).
c) Six-Monthly Inspection
The six-monthly inspection should be carried out onshore by a specialist
organisation. This inspection should include:
No.
Items
Activity
i)
Check details.
ii)
Tank shell
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Check condition.
vii)
Check condition.
viii)
Access manhole
Check security.
ix)
x)
Dipstick assembly
xi)
Bursting disc
xii)
xiii)
Bonding
xiv)
General
d) Re-certification
It is a legal requirement that single product transit tanks are re-certified at least
every five years by an authorised Fuel Inspector functioning under an approved
verification scheme. There should also be an intermediate check carried out every
2 years. These checks should also include re-certification of the pressure/
vacuum relief valve. The date of the re-certification should be stamped on the tank
inspection plate.
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 5
CAP 437
3.5
3.5.1
Static storage tanks are subject to an annual or biennial inspection depending on the
type of tank. If the storage tank is mild steel with a lining then it should be inspected
at least once per year. If the tank is stainless steel then a two-year interval between
inspections is acceptable.
3.5.2
When due for inspection the tank should be drained and vented with the manhole
access cover removed.
3.5.3
Items
Activity
i)
Cleanliness
ii)
Check condition.
iii)
iv)
Paint condition
v)
vi)
Inspection hatch
vii)
viii)
ix)
Floating suction
x)
Valves
xi)
Sump/drain line
xii)
Grade identification
xiii)
Contents gauge
xiv)
Bonding
3.6
Delivery Systems
3.6.1
The offshore delivery system should normally be inspected by the helicopter operator
every three months. However, the inspection may be carried out by a specialist
fuelling contractor on behalf of the helicopter operator. No system should exceed four
months between successive inspections. In addition the system should be subject to
daily and weekly checks by offshore fuelling personnel to ensure satisfactory fuel
quality.
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 6
CAP 437
a) Daily Checks
The following checks should be carried out each day.
No.
Items
Activity
i)
ii)
iii)
Floating suction
iv)
v)
Complete documentation
b) Weekly Checks
In addition to the daily checks specified in paragraph 3.6.1(a) the following checks
should be carried out each week.
No.
Items
Activity
i)
ii)
Entire system
iii)
iv)
v)
(continued)
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 7
CAP 437
No.
Items
Activity
vi)
vii)
Delivery nozzle/coupling
viii)
Bonding Reel
ix)
Documentation
c) Three-Monthly Inspection
A three-monthly check is the major inspection of the system. The following
checklist of items to be included will depend on the particular installation and is
included as a general guide only. Additional items may be included when
considered appropriate.
No.
Items
Activity
i)
ii)
iii)
(continued)
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 8
CAP 437
No.
May 2012
Items
Activity
iv)
Pump unit
v)
Hose reel
vi)
vii)
viii)
Delivery hose
ix)
Delivery coupling/nozzle
x)
xi)
Documentation
Chapter 8
Page 9
CAP 437
d) Six-Monthly Inspection
Six-monthly checks should be carried out only by an authorised Fuel Inspector. The
content of a six-monthly check should include all of the three-monthly checks
detailed in paragraph 3.6.1(c) and, in addition, should include the following items:
No.
May 2012
Items
Activity
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Metering unit
v)
Hose reel
vi)
Delivery hose
vii)
Documentation
Chapter 8
Page 10
CAP 437
e) Annual Inspection
Annual checks should be carried out by an authorised Fuel Inspector. The content
of the annual check includes all the items in both the three-monthly and sixmonthly inspections and the following additional items:
No.
i)
Items
Activity
ii)
Delivery hose
iii)
4.1
The trip examination should be carried out as specified in paragraph 3.4.1(a). The tank
should then be dipped to ascertain the quantity of fuel in the tank in order to calculate
the volume of fuel required to fill the tank. The following items should then be
completed:
a) Draw fuel from transit tank sample line and discard until the samples appear free
from water.
b) Carry out fuel quality check as noted in paragraph 2.3.
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 11
CAP 437
c) Once satisfied that the fuel is free from water, draw off sufficient fuel to measure
its specific gravity with a clean hydrometer. The fuel temperature should also be
noted in order to correct the measured specific gravity to a relative density (this is
done using a correction graph).
d) The relative density of the fuel sample taken from the transit tank should be
compared with that of the previous recorded relative density after the last tank
filling. The relative density of the previous batch of fuel should be taken from the
previous release note or from the label from the retained sample. If the difference
in relative densities exceeds 0.003 the contents of the transit tank may have been
contaminated with some other product and the refilling should not take place.
e) Connect the bonding wire to the transit tank then connect the delivery hose
coupling to the transit tank filling point and start the transfer pump to fill the tank.
When the meter register head indicates that the required quantity of fuel has been
transferred, stop the transfer pump, remove the coupling from the tank and then
remove the bonding connection. The dust cap should then be replaced on the
filling point.
f) Leave the tank to settle for ten minutes then a further sample should be drawn
from the tank once it has been filled. This sample should be labelled with the tank
number, the fuel batch number and date of filling and should then be retained
safely until the tank is offered again for refilling. The sample should be subjected
to a relative density check following the same process given in paragraph (c). The
record of this should be within 0.003 of the composite relative density of the bulk
tank contents and transit tank residue. This relative density reading should be
recorded to allow the fuel remaining in the tank to be checked for possible
contamination when the tank next returns from offshore for the next tank filling.
This fuel sample will be required as a proof of fuel quality in the event of an aircraft
incident where fuel may be considered to be a causal factor.
g) The tank should then be sealed and a release note completed with all the required
particulars; special attention should be paid that the correct grade of fuel is
included on this release note.
h) A copy of the release note should be secured in the tank document container and
a further copy retained for reference.
5.1
Transit tanks transported offshore are often exposed to sea spray and harsh weather
conditions on supply vessels and this could potentially cause ingress of water into the
fuel. It is strongly recommended that fuel sampling is carried out as soon as the
appropriate settling time has elapsed or at least within 24 hours of the tank being
placed into a bunded storage area on the installation or vessel. Settling times are one
hour per foot depth of fuel in the tank.
5.2
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 12
CAP 437
6.1
Before commencing any transfer of fuel it is necessary to dip the storage tank to
ensure that the contents of the transit tank can be accommodated within the
intended storage facility.
6.2
The transit tank should have had sufficient time to settle once positioned correctly for
the transfer operation. Settling times are one hour per foot depth of fuel in the tank.
6.3
Bulk storage tanks equipped with a floating suction device need at least one hour for
settling time and tanks without floating suction should be left for a period in hours
approximately equal to the depth of fuel in feet (e.g. six feet depth of fuel should be
left to settle for a period of at least six hours).
6.4
Fuel should be pumped (not gravity decanted) through filtration vessels for the
elements to be effective.
f) Re-start the transfer pump and open the static tank inlet valve to start the fuel flow.
Once fuel transfer has commenced check the coupling connections for any signs
of leakage and continue to monitor the fuel flow whilst transfer is taking place.
g) When sufficient fuel has been transferred, shut off the valves and stop the transfer
pump.
h) Disconnect the transfer hose followed by the electrical bonding lead and replace
any dust caps that were removed at the commencement of the operation.
i) Record fuel quality checks and the transfer of the transit tank contents into the
storage tanks and retain the release note on board the installation/vessel.
j) After transfer of fuel into the bulk storage tank and before it is released for use,
ensure that the fuel is allowed to settle in accordance with the time periods set out
above.
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 13
CAP 437
7.1
Many offshore helicopter fuelling systems are designed to supply aviation fuel direct
from the transit tanks into the delivery system.
7.2
8.1
The long term storage of aviation fuel offshore should be discouraged. Should fuel
stocks remain unused offshore for an extended period (e.g. six months after the filling
date) then, prior to use, samples should be drawn from the tank and sent onshore for
laboratory testing to ensure fuel quality. An alternative course of action is to return the
transit tank(s) to an onshore fuel depot for further action.
Aircraft Refuelling
9.1
Always ensure before starting any refuelling that the fuel in the storage tank or transit
tank is properly settled. Refer to paragraph 6 for correct settling times.
9.2
Before the commencement of any helicopter refuelling, the HLO should be notified.
All passengers should normally be disembarked from the helicopter and should be
clear of the helideck before refuelling commences (see also (i) below). The fire team
should be in attendance at all times during any refuelling operation. The following
procedure should then apply:
a) When the aircraft captain is ready and it has been ascertained how much fuel is
required and that the grade of fuel is correct for the particular aircraft, run out the
earth bonding lead and attach it to the aircraft. Next, run out the delivery hose on
the helideck to the aircraft refuelling point.
b) Take a fuel sample from the overwing nozzle or from the pressure refuelling
coupling sample point and carry out a water detection check. For two-pilot
operations, this water detection check should be witnessed by the non-handling
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 14
CAP 437
pilot, who should be satisfied that the fuel water test is acceptable. During singlepilot operations the water detection capsule should be shown to the pilot after the
water detection check.
NOTE:
c) If pressure refuelling, first connect the secondary bonding lead to bond the
refuelling nozzle to the aircraft, then connect the pressure coupling to the aircraft
and remain adjacent to the fuelling point. If gravity refuelling, first connect the
secondary bonding lead to bond the refuelling nozzle to the aircraft, then open the
tank filler and insert the nozzle and prepare to operate the fuel lever when signalled
to do so by the person in charge of refuelling.
d) The nominated person in charge of the refuelling should operate the system pump
switches and open any necessary valves to start the flow of fuel only when given
clearance by the pilot via the HLO.
e) If any abnormalities are observed during the refuelling the off switch should
immediately be operated. When refuelling is complete, the pump should be shut
down and the nozzle handle released.
f) Remove the refuelling nozzle or disconnect the pressure coupling as appropriate
and replace the aircraft filler and nozzle caps. Finally disconnect the secondary
bonding lead. A further fuel sample should now be taken, witnessed by the pilot,
as in (b) above and a fuel water check should again be carried out. See also
paragraph 2.4 for sample retention requirements.
g) Remove the delivery hose from the helideck and carry out a final check that the
aircraft filler cap is secure, then disconnect the main bonding lead from the aircraft
and check that all equipment is clear from the proximity of the aircraft. The hose
should be rewound onto its reel.
h) Enter the fuel quantity onto the daily refuelling sheet and obtain the pilots
signature for the fuel received.
i) If for safety reasons the aircraft captain has decided that the refuelling should be
carried out with engines and/or rotors running and/or with passengers embarked,
the following additional precautions should be undertaken:
i) Constant communications should be maintained between the aircraft captain
and the refuelling crew.
ii) The passengers should be briefed.
iii) The emergency exits opposite the refuelling point should be unobstructed and
ready for use (and remain open, weather permitting). Doors on the refuelling
side of the helicopter should remain closed.
iv) Passengers seatbelts should be undone.
v) At least one competent person should be positioned ready to supervise
disembarkation in the event of an emergency.
vi) Provision should be made for safe and rapid evacuation as directed by
competent persons. The area beneath the emergency exits should be kept
clear.
NOTE: If the presence of fuel vapour is detected inside the helicopter, or any other
hazard arises during refuelling, fuelling should be stopped immediately.
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 15
CAP 437
10
10.1
May 2012
Chapter 8
Page 16
CAP 437
1.1
Helidecks on vessels used in support of the offshore oil and gas industry should be
designed to comply with the requirements of the preceding chapters of this
publication.
1.2
1.3
Helicopter landing areas on vessels which comply with the criteria and which have
been satisfactorily assessed will be included in the HLL. This list will specify the
D-value of the helicopter landing area; include pitch and roll, SHR and helideck
inclination category information with helicopter operator derived landing limits; list
any areas of non-compliance against CAP 437; and detail any specific limitations
applied to the landing area. Vessels having ships-side or amidships purpose-built or
non-purpose-built landing areas may be subject to specific limitations.
1.4
Helicopter landing areas on vessels should always have an approved D-value equal to
or greater than the D dimension of the helicopter intending to land on it.
1.5
1.6
It should be noted that helicopter operations to small vessels with poor visual cues,
such as bow decks or a deck mounted above the bridge superstructure with the
landing direction facing forwards (bow deck) or abeam (high deck), will have stricter
landing limits imposed at night, with respect to the vessels movement in pitch and
roll, SHR and helideck inclination.
2.1
General
2.1.1
The following special requirements apply to vessels which can only accommodate a
helicopter landing area in an obstructed environment amidships. The centre of the
landing area will usually be co-located on the centreline of the vessel, but may be
offset from the ships centreline either to the port or starboard side up to the extent
that the edge of the landing area is coincidental with the ships side.
2.2
2.2.1
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 1
CAP 437
2.2.2
Forward and aft of the minimum 1D landing area should be two symmetrically located
150 LOS with apexes on the circumference of the D reference circle. Within the
area enclosing these two sectors, and to provide funnel of approach protection over
the whole of the D-circle, there should be no obstructions above the level of the
landing area except those referred to in Chapter 3, paragraph 6.2 which are permitted
up to a maximum height of 25 cm above the landing area level for any shipboard
heliport where the D-value is greater than 16.00 m or 5 cm above the landing area
level for any shipboard heliport where the D-value is 16.00 m or less.
2.2.3
On the surface of the landing area itself, objects whose function requires them to be
located there, such as deck-mounted lighting systems (see Chapter 4, paragraph 3
and Appendix C) and landing area nets (see Chapter 3, paragraph 7.3), should not
exceed a height of 25 mm.
2.2.4
2.2.5
Where the requirements for the LOS cannot be fully met but the landing area size is
acceptable, it may be possible to apply specific operational limitations or restrictions
which will enable helicopters up to a maximum D-value of the landing area to operate
to the deck.
2.2.6
February 2013
Chapter 9
Page 2
CAP 437
Limited obstacle
sector
(manoeuvring
zone)
Obstacle
free
sector
(clear zone)
Limited obstacle
sector
(manoeuvring
zone)
Reference
Points
Central
clear zone
NAME
150
150
Landing
area D
Funnel of
approach
Plan view
1:5
Figure 1
Landing area
1:5
3.1
The basic marking and lighting requirements referred to at Chapter 4 and Appendix C
will also apply to helicopter landing areas on ships ensuring that for amidships
helicopter landing areas the TD/PM Circle should always be positioned in the centre
of the landing area and both the forward and aft origins denoting the LOS should be
marked with a black chevron (see Chapter 4, Figure 2). In addition, where there is an
operational requirement, vessel owners may consider providing the helideck name
marking and maximum allowable mass t marking both forward and aft of the painted
helideck identification H marking and TD/PM Circle.
1.
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 3
CAP 437
0.5D
19
4m x 3m (0.75m thick)
1m yellow
touchdown/
positioning
marking circle
C/L of ship
C/L of ship
Characters of
0.9m height
19
Figure 2
1.
Original figure courtesy of International Chamber of Shipping, Helicopter Ship Guide (2008).
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 4
CAP 437
4.1
A non-purpose-built landing area located on a ships side should consist of a clear zone
and a manoeuvring zone as shown in Figure 3. The clear zone should be capable of
containing a circle with a minimum diameter of 1 x D. No objects should be located
within the clear zone except aids whose presence is essential for the safe operation
of the helicopter, and then only up to a maximum height of 2.5 cm. Such objects
should only be present if they do not represent a hazard to helicopters. Where there
are immovable fixed objects located in the clear zone, such as a Butterworth lid, these
should be marked conspicuously and annotated on the ships operating area diagram
(a system of annotation is described in detail in Appendix F to the ICS Helicopter Ship
Guide). In addition, a manoeuvring zone should be established, where possible, on the
main deck of the ship. The manoeuvring zone, intended to provide the helicopter with
an additional degree of protection to account for rotor overhang beyond the clear
zone, should extend beyond the clear zone by a minimum of 0.25D. The manoeuvring
zone should only contain obstacles whose presence is essential for the safe operation
of the helicopter, and up to a maximum height of 25 cm. Where the D-circle
accommodated is 16.00 m or less, obstacles contained in the manoeuvring zone
should not exceed a height of 5 cm.
0.2
5D
Manoeuvring zone
maximum height 25 cm
D
0.5 D
Max.
height 25 cm
Max.
height 25 cm
1.5 D
Clear zone extended at the ships side
2D
Manoeuvring zone extended at the ships side
Figure 3
4.2
May 2012
Where the operating area is coincident with the ships side, and in order to improve
operational safety, the clear zone should extend to a distance of 1.5D at the ships
side while the manoeuvring zone should extend to a distance of 2D measured at the
ships side. Within this area, the only obstacles present should be those essential for
the safe operation of the helicopter, with a maximum height of 25 cm (or 5 cm where
the D-circle accommodated has a diameter of 16.00 m or less). Where there are
immovable fixed objects such as tank cleaning lines they should be marked
conspicuously and annotated on the ships operating area diagram (see Appendix F in
the ICS Helicopter Ship Guide).
Chapter 9
Page 5
CAP 437
4.3
Any railings located on the ships side should be removed or stowed horizontally along
the entire length of the manoeuvring zone at the ships side (i.e. over a distance of at
least 2D). All aerials, awnings, stanchions and derricks and cranes within the vicinity
of the manoeuvring zone should be either lowered or securely stowed. All dominant
obstacles within, or adjacent to, the manoeuvring zone should be conspicuously
marked and, for night operations, lit (see paragraph 6 and Chapter 4, paragraph 4).
5.1
A TD/PM Circle, denoting the touchdown point for the helicopter, should be located
centrally within the clear zone. The diameter of the clear zone should be 1 x D (D being
the extent of the available operating area), while the inner diameter of the TD/PM
should be 0.5D. The TD/PM Circle should be at least 0.5 m in width and painted
yellow. The area enclosed by the TD/PM Circle should be painted in a contrasting
colour, preferably dark green. A white H should be painted in the centre of the circle,
with the cross bar of the H running parallel to the ships side. The H marking should
be 4 m high x 3 m wide, the width of the marking itself being 0.75 m.
5.2
The boundary of the clear zone, capable of enclosing a circle with a minimum
diameter of 1 x D and extending to a total distance of 1.5D at the ships side, should
be painted with a continuous 0.3 m wide yellow line. The actual D-value, expressed
in metres rounded to the nearest whole number (with 0.5 m rounded down), should
also be marked in three locations around the perimeter of the clear zone in a
contrasting colour, preferably white. The height of the numbers so marked should be
0.9 m.
5.3
The boundary of the manoeuvring zone, located beyond the clear zone and extending
to a total distance of 2D at the ships side, should be marked with a 0.3 m wide broken
yellow line with a mark:space ratio of approximately 4:1. Where practical, the name
of the ship should be painted in a contrasting colour (preferably white) on the inboard
side of the manoeuvring zone in (minimum) 1.2 m high characters (see Figure 4).
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 6
CAP 437
0.3m wide
marking,
white or
\HOORZ
0.5m wide
marking,
\HOORZ
19
No obstructions higher
than 2.5cm
19
19
No
obstructions
higher than
25cm
1RWHV7KHGLDPHWHULQPHWUHVRIWKHFOHDUzone D to be markHGLQZKLWHJXUHVRIPDWHDFKRIWKHSRLQWV
VKRZQVRDVWREHHDVLO\YLVLEOHWRWKHKHOLFRSWHUSLORW1%7KHGLDPHWHULQPHWUHVRIWKHFOHDU]one
PXVWEHHTXDOWRRUJUHDWHUWKDQWKHoverDOOOHQJWKRIDYLVLWLQJKHOLFRSWHUZLWKURWRUVUXQQLQJ
Figure 4
1.
Original figure courtesy of International Chamber of Shipping, Helicopter Ship Guide (2008).
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 7
CAP 437
Night Operations
6.1
Details of landing area lighting for purpose-built landing areas are given at Chapter 4
and Appendix C. In addition, Figure 5 shows an example of the overall lighting scheme
for night helicopter operations (example shows a non-purpose-built ships side
arrangement).
1
Floodlights
illuminating
international
code pennant
used for wind
reference
Signal lights
Floodlights
illuminating
funnel
Figure 5
Floodlights
illuminating
accommodation
front
Floodlights
illuminating
derrick posts
Derrick post
oodlights
illuminating
operating area
7.1
1.
Floodlights
illuminating
foremast
May 2012
Chapter 9
Page 8
CAP 437
1.1
Where practicable, the helicopter should always land rather than hoist, because
safety is enhanced when the time spent hovering is reduced. In both cases the
Vessels Master should be fully aware of, and in agreement with, the helicopter pilots
intentions.
1.2
1.3
1.3.1
A winching area should be located over an area to which the helicopter can safely
hover whilst hoisting to or from the vessel. Its location should allow the pilot an
unimpeded view of the whole of the clear zone whilst facilitating an unobstructed
view of the vessel. The winching area should be located so as to minimise
aerodynamic and wave motion effects. The area should preferably be clear of
accommodation spaces (see also paragraph 1.6) and provide adequate deck area
adjacent to the manoeuvring zone to allow for safe access to the winching area from
different directions. In selecting a winching area the desirability for keeping the
hoisting height to a minimum should also be borne in mind.
1.3.2
1.4
Visual Aids
1.4.1
Winching area markings should be located so that their centres coincide with the
centre of the clear zone (see Figure 1).
1.4.2
1.4.3
A winching area outer manoeuvring zone marking should consist of a broken circle
with a minimum line width of 30 cm and a mark:space ratio of approximately 4:1. The
marking should be painted in a conspicuous colour, preferably yellow. The extent of
the inner manoeuvring zone may be indicated by painting a thin white line, typically
10 cm thickness.
1.4.4
Within the manoeuvring zone, in a location adjacent to the clear area, WINCH ONLY
should be easily visible to the pilot, painted in not less than 2 m characters, in a
conspicuous colour.
May 2012
Chapter 10
Page 1
CAP 437
1.4.5
1.4.6
The spectral distribution of winching area floodlights should be such that the surface
and obstacle markings can be clearly identified. The floodlighting arrangement should
ensure that shadows are kept to a minimum.
1
CLEAR ZONE
5m minimum
diameter circle
painted yellow
WINCH ONLY
to be marked in
white so as to be
easily visible to the
helicopter pilot
No
obstructions
higher than
6m
No obstructions
higher than 3m
Figure 1
1.
No
obstructions
No
obstructions
higher than
6m
No obstructions
higher than 3m
May 2012
Chapter 10
Page 2
CAP 437
1.5
Obstructions
1.5.1
To reduce the risk of a hoist hook or cable becoming fouled, all guard rails, awnings,
stanchions, antennae and other obstructions within the vicinity of the manoeuvring
zone should, as far as possible, be either removed, lowered or securely stowed.
1.5.2
All dominant obstacles within, or adjacent to, the manoeuvring zone should be
conspicuously marked and, for night operations, be adequately illuminated (see
paragraphs 1.4.5 and 1.4.6. Also see Chapter 4, paragraph 4).
1.6
1.6.1
Some vessels may only be able to provide winching areas which are situated above
accommodation spaces. Due to the constraints of operating above such an area only
twin-engined helicopters should be used for such operations and the following
procedures adhered to:
a) Personnel should be cleared from all spaces immediately below the helicopter
operating area and from those spaces where the only means of escape is through
the area immediately below the operating area.
b) Safe means of access to and escape from the operating area should be provided
by at least two independent routes.
c) All doors, ports, skylights etc. in the vicinity of the aircraft operating area should be
closed. This also applies to deck levels below the operating area.
Fire and rescue personnel should be deployed in a ready state but sheltered from the
helicopter operating area.
2.1
Platform Design
2.1.1
The winching area platform (clear area) should be square or rectangular and capable
of containing a circle having a minimum diameter of 4.0 m.
2.1.2
In addition to the winching area platform, provision needs to be made for a safety
zone to accommodate Helicopter Hoist Operations Passengers (HHOP) at a safe
distance away from the winching area during helicopter hoist operations. The
minimum safe distance is deemed to be not less than 1.5 m from the inboard edge
of the winching (clear) area.
February 2013
Chapter 10
Page 3
CAP 437
2.1.3
The safety zone should be connected by an access route to the winching area
platform located inboard of the winching area platform. The safety zone and
associated access route should have the same surface characteristics as the
winching area platform (see paragraphs 2.1.5, 2.1.6 and 2.1.7) except that the overall
size may be reduced, such that the dimensions of the safety zone and access route
are not less than 2.5 m (length) x 0.9 m (width).
NOTE:
The dimensions of the safety zone may need to be increased according to the
maximum number of HHOP that need to be accommodated safely away from the
winching (clear) area during helicopter hoist operations.
2.1.4
To differentiate the safety zone and the associated access route from the winching
area, it is recommended that the safety zone and access route be painted in
contrasting colours to indicate to HHOP where it is safe to congregate during
helicopter hoist operations (see paragraph 2.3.1 and Figure 2).
2.1.5
2.1.6
The platform deck should be capable of supporting a mass that is approximately five
times the weight of an average HHOP.
2.1.7
The surface of the platform, including the safety zone and associated access route,
should display suitable friction characteristics to ensure the safe movement of HHOP
in all conditions.
2.1.8
The winching area platform and associated access route and safety zone should be
completely enclosed by a 1.5 m high railing system to ensure the safety and security
of HHOP at all times. The design of the safety rails should ensure that a free flow of
air through the structure is not prevented or disrupted whilst also guaranteeing that
no possibility exists for the hoist hook to get entangled in the railing or in any other
part of the platform structure.
2.1.9
The surface of the platform should be essentially flat for helicopter hoist operations.
However, the floor may slope down towards the outboard edge of the platform to
prevent the pooling of water on the platform. It is recommended that a slope not
exceeding 2% (1:50) be provided.
2.1.10
The outboard edge of the winching area platform should be located at a minimum
horizontal distance from the plane of rotation of the turbine blades that is not less than
1 x the Rotor Diameter (RD) of the largest helicopter intending to conduct hoist
operations to the platform. For single main rotor types, the RD is assumed to
represent the largest overall width dimension of the helicopter, so that for the widest
helicopter authorised to operate to the platform, when located with the centre of the
disc directly above the outboard edge of the platform (as depicted in Figure 3), a
minimum rotor-tip-to-obstacle clearance of RD (i.e. one rotor radius) is assured. To
make allowance for circumstances that may require a helicopter in the hover to move
laterally from the edge of the platform in the direction of the turbine blades, a
reduction in the minimum rotor-tip-to-obstacle clearance below RD may be
permitted. However, in no circumstances should the clearance between the tip-path
plane of the main rotor and the plane of rotation of the turbine blades be reduced
below 4 m for any helicopter intending to conduct hoist operations to the platform.
February 2013
Chapter 10
Page 4
CAP 437
2.1.11
During helicopter hoist operations, it is essential that the nacelle should not turn in
azimuth and that the turbine blades should also be prevented from rotating by the
application of the braking system. Experience in other sectors indicates that it is
normal practice for the nacelle to be motored 90 degrees out of wind so that the
upwind blade is horizontal and points into the prevailing wind. This is considered to
be the preferred orientation for helicopter hoist operations; however, the actual
orientation of the blades may vary to suit specific operational requirements.
2.2
Obstacle Restriction
2.2.1
Within a horizontal distance of 1.5 m measured from the winching (clear) area, no
obstacles are permitted to extend above the top of the 1.5 m railing.
2.2.2
Beyond 1.5 m, and out to a distance corresponding to the plane of rotation of the
turbine rotor blades, obstacles are permitted up to a height not exceeding 3 m above
the surface of the winching area. It is required that only fixed obstacles essential to
the safety of the operation are present, e.g. anemometer masts, communications
antennae, helihoist status light etc.
2.3
Visual Aids
2.3.1
The surface of the winching area (a minimum 4 m square 'clear area') should be
painted yellow. For the safety zone, green is recommended and a contrasting grey for
the associated access route (see Figure 2).
2.3.2
The railings around the entire winching area, safety zone and associated access route
should be painted in a conspicuous colour, preferably red.
2.3.3
The wind turbine structure should be clearly identifiable from the air using a simple
designator (typically a two-digit or three-digit number with block identification),
painted in 1.2 m (minimum) characters in a contrasting colour, preferably black. The
turbine designator should be painted on the nacelle top cover ideally utilising an area
adjacent to the turbine rotor blades.
2.3.4
A procedure should be put in place to indicate to the helicopter operator that the
turbine blades and nacelle are safely secured in position prior to helicopter hoist
operations commencing. Experience in other sectors has demonstrated that this may
be achieved by the provision of a helihoist status light located on the nacelle within
the pilot's field of view, which is capable of being operated remotely and from the
platform itself or from within the nacelle. The system commonly used is a green light
capable of displaying in both steady and flashing signal mode. A steady green light is
displayed to indicate to the pilot that the turbine blades and nacelle are secure and it
is safe to operate. A flashing green light is displayed to indicate that the turbine is in
a state of preparation to accept hoist operations or, when displayed during hoist
operations, that parameters are moving out of limits. When the light is extinguished
this indicates to the operator that it is not safe to conduct helicopter hoist operations.
2.3.5
2.3.6
Obstruction lighting in the vicinity of the winching area that has a potential to cause
glare or dazzle to the pilot or to a helicopter hoist operations crew member should be
switched off prior to, and during, helicopter hoist operations.
February 2013
Chapter 10
Page 5
CAP 437
Not to scale
35
Green helicopter
hoist status
light
Obstacles permitted up to
3m above winching
platform surface
0.9m (minimum)
Minimum
1 Rotor diameter
(1RD) of widest
helicopter
Green
Safety Zone
for HHOP
1.0m (minimum)
authorised to
service the
platform
Grey
Access route
1.5m
No obstacles
permitted
above the
height of
the handrails
(1.5m)
1.5m high
safety rail
(painted red)
Essentially flat
(maximum 2% slope)
yellow surface
with suitable
friction
characteristics
Winching
area
4m
(minimum)
platform
(clear area)
4m (minimum)
Note: Blade orientation may vary to suit operational requirements.
Figure 2
February 2013
Direction of
approach
Chapter 10
Page 6
CAP 437
2.3.7
Not to scale
(Safety zone and associated access route not shown)
Min 4 m
1.5 m
1.5 m
3m
No obstacles
Figure 3
February 2013
Chapter 10
Page 7
CAP 437
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
Specific operational guidance is being prepared for CAP 789. It is recommended that
helicopter hoist operators consult this additional source.
February 2013
Chapter 10
Page 8
CAP 437
Appendix A Checklist
The following 'checklist' is based on extracts from JAR-OPS 3 Section 2 Subpart D, AMC No.
2 to OPS 3.220, which provides in specific and detailed terms the minimum criteria which need
to be assessed when determining the acceptability of a helicopter landing area on an offshore
installation or vessel. The CAA considers that as a minimum these issues should be examined
during periodic surveys to confirm that there has been no alteration or deterioration in the
condition of the helicopter landing area.
a) The physical characteristics of the helideck:
i) Dimensions as measured;
ii) Declared D-value;
iii) Deck shape; and
iv) Scale drawings of deck arrangement.
b) The preservation of obstacle-protected surfaces is the most basic safeguard for all
flights. These surfaces are:
i) The minimum 210 Obstacle Free Sector (OFS) surface;
ii) The 150 Limited Obstacle Sector (LOS) surface; and
iii) The minimum 180 falling 5:1 gradient surface with respect to significant obstacles.
If one or more of these surfaces is infringed due, for example, to the proximity of an
adjacent installation or vessel, an assessment should be made to determine any possible
negative effect which may lead to operating restrictions.
c) Marking and lighting:
i) Adequate helideck perimeter lighting;
ii) Adequate helideck touchdown marking lighting ("H" and TD/PM Circle lighting) and/or
floodlighting;
iii) Status lights (for day and night operations);
iv) Helideck markings;
v) Dominant obstacle paint schemes and lighting; and
vi) General installation lighting levels including floodlighting.
Where inadequate helideck lighting exists the Helideck Limitation List (HLL) should be
annotated 'daylight only operations'.
d) Deck surface:
i) Surface friction;
ii) Helideck net (as applicable);
iii) Drainage system;
iv) Deck edge perimeter safety netting;
v) Tie-down points; and
vi) Cleaning of all contaminants (to maintain satisfactory recognition of helideck markings
and preservation of the helideck friction surface).
May 2012
Appendix A
Page 1
CAP 437
e) Environment:
i) Foreign object damage;
ii) Air quality degradation due to exhaust emissions, hot and cold vented gas emissions
and physical turbulence generators;
iii) Bird control;
iv) Any adjacent helideck/installation environmental effects may need to be included in
any air quality assessment; and
v) Flares.
f) Rescue and Fire Fighting:
i) Primary and complementary media types, quantities, capacity and systems;
ii) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); and
iii) Crash box.
g) Communications and navigation:
i) Aeronautical radio(s);
ii) Radio/telephone (R/T) call sign to match helideck name and side identification which
should be simple and unique;
iii) Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) or equivalent (as appropriate); and
iv) Radio log.
h) Fuelling facilities:
i) In accordance with relevant national guidance and regulations.
i) Additional operational and handling equipment:
i) Windsock;
ii) Meteorological information (recorded by an automated means);
iii) Helideck Motion System recording and reporting (where applicable);
iv) Passenger briefing system;
v) Chocks;
vi) Tie-downs; and
vii)Weighing scales for passengers, baggage and freight.
j) Personnel:
i) Trained helicopter staff (e.g. Helicopter Landing Officer, Helideck Assistant and firefighters).
k) Other:
i) As appropriate.
NOTE: AMC No. 2 to OPS 3.220 also provides detailed guidance on the format and
content of the HLL and the Helideck template (the HIP) which are required to be
provided as part of the helideck approvals process.
May 2012
Appendix A
Page 2
CAP 437
Appendix B Bibliography
1
References
Where a chapter is indicated below it shows where in this CAP the document is
primarily referenced.
Health and Safety Executive
Chapter
1
May 2012
ICAO Annex 3
Heliports
Heliport Manual
Appendix B
Page 1
CAP 437
Other Publications
Chapter
9
IMO (International
Maritime Organization)
ISO (International
Organization for
Standardization)
Chapter
May 2012
Appendix B
Page 2
CAP 437
CAP 413
Radiotelephony Manual
CAP 452
CAP 670
CAP 746
(Appendix H)
CAP 748
10
CAP 764
10
CAP 789
10
Sources
British Standards (BS) may be obtained from Her Majestys Stationery Office, PO
Box 276, Nine Elms Lane, London SW8 5DT. Telephone +44 (0) 20 7211 5656 or from
any HMSO. Advice on relevant codes (BS, EN and PREN) is available from the CAA at
SRG Gatwick.
Civil Aviation Publications (CAPs) and Civil Aviation Authority Papers (CAA Papers) are
published on the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk where you may register for e-mail
notification of amendments. Please see the inside cover of this CAP for details of
availability of paper copy.
HSE Publications from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2WA.
Telephone +44 (0) 1787 881165 or e-mail hsebooks@prolog.uk.com. Most
documents can be downloaded from HSEs website www.hse.gov.uk.
ICAO Publications are available from Airplan Flight Equipment, 1a Ringway Trading
Estate, Shadowmoss Road, Manchester M22 5LH. Telephone +44 (0) 161 499 0023.
The ICAO website address is www.icao.int.
International Chamber of Shipping Publications from International Chamber of
Shipping, 12 Carthusian Street, London, EC1M 6EZ. Telephone +44 (0) 20 7417 2855.
E-mail publications@marisec.org.
Oil & Gas UK Publications from Oil & Gas UK, 2nd Floor, 232-242 Vauxhall Bridge
Road, London SW1V 1AU. Telephone +44 (0) 20 7802 2400. Website
www.oilandgas.org.uk. E-mail info@oilandgasuk.co.uk.
OPITO Publications from OPITO, Inchbraoch house, South Quay, Ferryden,
Montrose, Scotland, DD10 9SL. Telephone +44 (0) 1674 662500.
May 2012
Appendix B
Page 3
CAP 437
1.1
The whole lighting scheme should be visible over a range of 360 in azimuth. Although
on some offshore installations the helideck may be obscured by topsides structure in
some approach directions, the lighting configuration on the helideck need not take
this into account.
1.2
The visibility of the lighting scheme should be compatible with the normal range of
helicopter vertical approach paths from a range of two nautical miles (NM).
1.3
The purpose of the lighting scheme is to aid the helicopter pilot perform the
necessary visual tasks during approach and landing as stated in Table 1.
Table 1
Phase of
Approach
Visual Task
5000 m met.
vis.
1400 m met.
vis.
Helideck
Location
and
Identification
Search within
platform
structure.
Shape of helideck;
colour of helideck;
luminance of
helideck
perimeter lighting.
1.5
(2.8 km)
0.75
(1.4 km)
Final
Approach
Detect
helicopter
position in
three axes.
Apparent size/shape
and change of size/
shape of helideck.
Orientation and
change of
orientation of
known features/
markings/lights.
1.0
(1.8 km)
0.5
(900 m)
0.03
(50 m)
0.03
(50 m)
Detect rate of
change of
position.
Hover and
Landing
May 2012
Visual Cues/Aids
Detect
helicopter
attitude,
position and
rate of change
of position in
three axes (six
degrees of
freedom).
Known features/
markings/lights.
Helideck texture.
Appendix C
Page 1
CAP 437
1.4
The minimum intensities of the lighting scheme should be adequate to ensure that,
for a minimum Meteorological Visibility (Met. Vis.) of 1400 m and an illuminance
threshold of 10-6.1 lux, each feature of the system is visible and usable at night from
ranges in accordance with paragraphs 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7.
1.5
The perimeter lights are to be visible at night from a minimum range of 0.75 NM.
1.6
The TD/PM Circle on the helideck is to be visible at night from a minimum range of
0.5 NM.
1.7
The Heliport Identification Marking (H) is to be visible at night from a minimum range
of 0.25 NM.
1.8
The minimum ranges at which the TD/PM Circle and H are visible and usable (see
paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7) should still be achieved even where a correctly fitted landing
net covers the lighting.
1.9
The design of the perimeter lights, TD/PM Circle and 'H' should be such that the
luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM Circle
segments, and the luminance of the TD/PM Circle segments is equal to or greater
than that of the 'H'.
1.10
The design of the TD/PM Circle and 'H' should include a facility to increase their
intensity to twice the minimum figures given in this specification to permit a once-off
(tamper proof) adjustment at installation; the maximum figures should not be
exceeded. The purpose of this facility is to ensure adequate performance at
installations with high levels of background lighting without risking glare at less welllit installations. The TD/PM Circle and 'H' should be adjusted together using a single
control to ensure that the balance of the overall lighting system is maintained in both
the 'standard' and 'bright' settings.
Definitions
2.1
2.1.1
Lighting Element
A lighting element is a light source within a segment or sub-section and may be
individual (e.g. a Light Emitting Diode (LED)) or continuous (e.g. fibre optic cable,
electroluminescent panel). An individual lighting element may consist of a single light
source or multiple light sources arranged in a group or cluster.
2.1.2
Segment
A segment is a section of the TD/PM Circle lighting. For the purposes of this
specification, the dimensions of a segment are the length and width of the smallest
possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements,
including any lenses.
2.1.3
Sub-Section
A sub-section is an individual section of the 'H' lighting. For the purposes of this
specification, the dimensions of a sub-section are the length and width of the smallest
possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements,
including any lenses.
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 2
CAP 437
3.1
Configuration
Perimeter lights, spaced at intervals of not more than 3 m, should be fitted around the
perimeter of the landing area of the helideck.
3.2
Mechanical Constraints
For any helideck where the D-value is greater than 16.00 m, the perimeter lights
when installed should not exceed a height of 25 cm above the surface of the helideck.
Where a helideck has a D-value of 16.00 m or less, the perimeter lights when installed
should not exceed a height of 5 cm above the surface of the helideck.
3.3
Light Intensity
The minimum light intensity profile is given in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Elevation
Azimuth
Intensity (min)
0 to 10
-180 to +180
30 cd
>10 to 20
-180 to +180
15 cd
>20 to 90
-180 to +180
3 cd
No perimeter light should have a luminous intensity of greater than 60 cd at any angle
of elevation. Note that the design of the perimeter lights should be such that the
luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM Circle
segments.
3.4
Colour
The colour of the light emitted by the perimeter lights should be green, as defined in
ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1(c), whose chromaticity lies
within the following boundaries:
3.5
Yellow boundary
x = 0.360 0.080y
White boundary
x = 0.650y
Blue boundary
y = 0.390 0.171x
Serviceability
The perimeter lighting is considered serviceable provided that at least 90% of the
lights are serviceable, and providing that any unserviceable lights are not adjacent to
each other.
4.1
Configuration
The lit TD/PM Circle should be superimposed on the yellow painted marking. It should
comprise one or more concentric circles of at least 16 discrete lighting segments, of
40 mm minimum width. A single circle should be positioned at the mean radius of the
painted circle. Multiple circles should be symmetrically disposed about the mean
radius of the painted circle. The lighting segments should be of such a length as to
provide coverage of between 50% and 75% of the circumference and be
equidistantly placed with the gaps between them not less than 0.5 m. The mechanical
housing should be coloured yellow see CAP 437, Chapter 4, paragraph 2.11.
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 3
CAP 437
4.2
Mechanical Constraints
4.2.1
The height of the segments and lighting elements of the TD/PM Circle and any
associated cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm. The
overall height of the system, taking account of any mounting arrangements, should
be kept to a minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the segments should not
present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle
not exceeding 30 from the horizontal.
4.2.2
The overall effect of the lighting strips and cabling on deck friction should be
minimised. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting segments should meet
the minimum deck friction limit coefficient () of 0.65, e.g. on non-illuminated
surfaces.
4.2.3
The TD/PM Circle lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to
withstand a pressure of at least 1,655 kPa (240 lb/in2) and ideally 2,280 kPa (331 lb/in2)
without damage.
4.3
Intensity
4.3.1
The light intensity for each of the lighting segments, when viewed at angles of
azimuth over the range +80 to80 from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the
strip (see Figure 1), should be as defined in Table 3.
Table 3
Elevation
Min
Max
>0 to 10
60 cd
>10 to 20
45 cd
>20 to 90
15 cd
4.3.2
For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of the longitudinal axis of the
segment, the maximum intensity should be as defined in Table 3.
4.3.3
Note that the intensity of each lighting segment should be nominally symmetrical
about its longitudinal axis.
4.3.4
Note also that the design of the TD/PM Circle should be such that the luminance of
the TD/PM Circle segments is equal to or greater than the sub-sections of the 'H'.
Figure 1
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 4
CAP 437
20
Segment intensity (cd)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
0.5
1.5
2.5
Figure 2
NOTE:
4.3.5
4.3.6
If the segment comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable,
electroluminescent panel), then to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element
should be masked at 3 cm intervals on a 1:1 mark:space ratio.
4.4
Colour
The colour of the light emitted by the TD/PM Circle should be yellow, as defined in
ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1(b), whose chromaticity lies
within the following boundaries:
4.5
Red boundary
y = 0.382
White boundary
y = 0.790 0.667x
Green boundary
y = x 0.120
Serviceability
The TD/PM Circle is considered serviceable provided that at least 90% of the
segments are serviceable. A TD/PM Circle segment is considered serviceable
provided that at least 90% of the lighting elements are serviceable.
May 2012
Appendix C
Page 5
CAP 437
5.1
Configuration
5.1.1
0.75 m
4m
Outline
lit H
(80-100 mm)
Painted H
3m
Figure 3
5.1.2
5.2
Mechanical Constraints
5.2.1
The height of the subsections and lighting elements of the lit 'H' and any associated
cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm. The overall height
of the system, taking account of any mounting arrangements, should be kept to a
minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the lighting strips should not present any
vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle not
exceeding 30 from the horizontal.
5.2.2
The overall effect of the lighting sub-sections and cabling on deck friction should be
minimised. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting sub-sections should meet
the minimum deck friction limit coefficient () of 0.65, e.g. on non-illuminated
surfaces.
5.2.3
The 'H' lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a
pressure of at least 1,655 kPa (240 lb/in2) and ideally 2,280 kPa (331 lb/in2) without
damage.
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 6
CAP 437
5.3
Intensity
5.3.1
The intensity of the lighting along the 4 m edge of an outline 'H' over all angles of
azimuth is given in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Elevation
Min
Max
2 to 12
3.5 cd
60 cd
>12 to 20
0.5 cd
30 cd
>20 to 90
0.2 cd
10 cd
NOTE: For the purposes of demonstrating compliance with this specification, a subsection of the lighting forming the 4 m edge of the 'H' may be used. The
minimum length of the sub-section should be 0.5 m.
5.3.2
5.3.3
If the 'H' is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LEDs) then they should be
of nominally identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be
equidistantly spaced within the limb to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing should
be 3 cm and maximum spacing 10 cm. The intensity of each lighting element (i)
should be given by the formula:
i=I/n
where: I = intensity of the segment between 2 and 12.
n = the number of lighting elements within the segment.
5.3.4
If the 'H' is constructed from a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cables or
panels, electroluminescent panels), the luminance (B) of the 4 m edge of the outline
H should be given by the formula:
B=I/A
where: I = intensity of the limb (see Table 4).
A = the projected lit area at the look down (elevation) angle.
5.4
Colour
The colour of the 'H' should be green, as defined in ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1
Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1(c), whose chromaticity lies within the following
boundaries:
5.5
Yellow boundary
x = 0.360 0.080y
White boundary
x = 0.650y
Blue boundary
y = 0.390 0.171x
Serviceability
The 'H' is considered serviceable provided that at least 90% of the sub-sections are
serviceable. An 'H' sub-section is considered serviceable provided that at least 90%
of the lighting elements are serviceable.
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 7
CAP 437
Other Considerations
6.1
All lighting components and fitments should meet safety regulations relevant to a
helideck environment such as explosion proofing (Zone 1 or 2 as appropriate) and
flammability (by a notified body in accordance with the ATEX directive).
6.2
All lighting components and fitments installed on the surface of the helideck should
be resistant to attack by fluids such as fuel, hydraulic fluid, and those used for deicing, cleaning and fire-fighting. In addition they should be resistant to UV light, rain,
sea spray, guano, snow and ice. Installation arrangements for the lighting
components and fitments should be acceptable to the CAA.
6.3
All lighting components and fitments that are mounted on the surface of the helideck
should be able to operate within a temperature range appropriate for the local ambient
conditions.
6.4
All lighting components and fitments should, as a minimum, meet IEC International
Protection (IP) standard IP66, i.e. dust tight and resistant to powerful water jetting.
6.5
All cabling should utilise low smoke/toxicity, flame retardant cable. Any through-thedeck cable routing and connections should use sealed glands, type approved for
helideck use.
6.6
All lighting components should be tested by an independent test house. The optical
department of this test house should be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025.
6.7
Provision should be included in the design of the system to allow for the drainage of
the helideck, in particular the area inside the TD/PM Circle.
February 2013
Appendix C
Page 8
CAP 437
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 1
CAP 437
to Chapter 21). It was not intended that such a minimal provision of primary fire-fighting
media should be deemed acceptable for a permanent heliport operation, operating in a
remote location in a hostile environment onto minimum size elevated landing areas,
routinely using helicopters that are not only larger than the H1 category, but also carry more
passengers and fuel compared to helicopters typically utilizing the CAP 789 low intensity
requirements. Using the risk assessment elements promulgated in Section 1 of Appendix 1
to this letter, it is not justifiable to select such a reduced level of fire cover when all these
factors are considered together.
It is evident that the current arrangements for RFFS on fixed NUI platforms on the UKCS
are inadequate to address all likely, and reasonably foreseeable, fire situations that may be
encountered during routine offshore helicopter operations. For this reason, taking account
also of concerns raised by the offshore helicopter operators and the HCA, and with the
support of the UK Health and Safety Executive, CAA has undertaken to conduct a review of
the minimum scales of fire fighting media that would be appropriate for existing NUI assets
operating on the UK Continental Shelf (for a full list of assets see Appendix 2). The
following sections provide detailed outcomes of the review conducted with reference to
other sources of UK best practice (including CAP 168 and CAP 789) and ICAO Annex 14
Volume II and the Heliport Manual (doc. 9261). Offshore duty holders and helicopter
operators should be aware that the scales presented in this letter are considered to be
minimum requirements for each specific category and, having determined the appropriate
scale, agreed between the platform operator and helicopter operator, specific NUIs may still
decide to select scales of media that are different from those prescribed, providing they are
no lower than the appropriate baseline scale.
2. Determination of an appropriate Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS)
In the following sections a total of twenty seven separate options are provided for the
consideration of primary media within nine tables promulgated on the basis of the following:
1. Whether the NUI operation is classed as Low Intensity, Standard Intensity or
Higher intensity. (See definitions in Appendix 1, Section 2.)
2. Whether the largest helicopter operating to the NUI is classed within Helicopter
Category H1 Large, Helicopter Category H2 Medium or Helicopter Category H2
Large. (See definitions in Appendix 1, Section 3.)
3. Whether the type of foam being discharged meets ICAO Performance Level B,
Performance Level B (Compressed Air Foam System) or ICAO Performance
Level C. (See discussion in Appendix 1, Section 4.)
In all cases the complementary media requirements for gaseous media and Dry Powder are
identical, being based on CAP 437, Chapter 5, Section 4. Likewise the rescue equipment
requirements are the same for every category, being based on CAP 437, Chapter 5,
Section 7 (see also Appendix 1, Section 6). The requirements for Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) are specified in Appendix 1, Section 7.
In accordance with Appendix 1, Section 5, there is an inbuilt assumption that whatever
method is used for discharging foam to the helideck, the response time objectives of CAP
437, Chapter 5, Section 2.2 are upheld; such that a delay of less than 15 seconds should
be the operational objective measured from the time the system is activated to the actual
production of foam at the required application rate. Depending on the overriding fire fighting
objectives and assumptions (see Appendix 1, Section 5), the scales are presented to
ensure the effective discharge of foam will last either for a minimum of 2 minutes or 5
minutes.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 2
CAP 437
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 3
CAP 437
foam systems, capable of discharging aspirated or non-aspirated foam will usually require
less effort to maintain.
5. Which installations need to review their current RFFS provision?
Based on information provided by the HCA in interrogating the Helideck Limitations List
(HLL), there are understood to be 116 NUIs operating within the UKCS. These installations
are listed, by region, in Appendix 2. This list includes all NUIs regardless of their existing
RFFS provision. Thus Appendix 2 may be assumed as the definitive list of installations that
need to review their current RFFS provision. The list of 116 NUIs is understood to
encompass the assets of approximately 20 offshore duty holders currently serviced by a
range of helicopters from three offshore helicopter operators. It is important, before any
rectification action is implemented, that the platform operator provides full movement
/manning data to the helicopter operator to facilitate discussion and agree a methodology
and programme for any upgrade of RFFS. Prior to implementation, it will be necessary for
the HCA to endorse any action plan. HCA will wish to ensure that any rectification work,
including the physical location of foam dispensing equipment, does not compromise CAP
437 obstruction criteria or invalidate any conditions of the current landing area certificate for
the installation.
6. Scales of primary and secondary media for existing asset NUIs
LARGE H1 RFFS Standard Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance Level B
Total foam
solution
(Litres)
900 (650)
Minimum
discharge
rate of
foam
(L/Min)
450 (325)
Minimum
duration
(Min)
2 (2)
Complementary Agent
Dry
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
And
Gaseous
Agent
(Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Pre-mix foam systems should be fully automatic and be capable of activating
instantaneously in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the helideck where fire
results. The automatic system should dispense aspirated or non-aspirated foam in
a jet or spray pattern.
5. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS are shown within the
bracketed values in the above table.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 4
CAP 437
75
60
Complementary Agent
Dry
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
And Gaseous
Agent
(Kg)
45
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Premix-foam units may be aspirated or non-aspirated but should be capable of
delivering agent to the seat of the fire.
5. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS in this case are
assumed to be equivalent to amounts specified for Performance Level C foams.
LARGE H1 RFFS Higher Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance
Level B
Total
Minimum Minimum
foam
discharge Duration
solution
rate of
(Min)
(Litres)
foam
(L/Min)
2250
450
(1625)
(325)
(5)
300
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent (Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 5
CAP 437
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type, capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Pre-mix foam systems should be fully automatic and be capable of activating
instantaneously in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the helideck where fire
results. The automatic system should dispense aspirated or non-aspirated foam in
a jet or spray pattern.
5. The primary media levels specified for a higher intensity operation which is staffed
for more than 50% of public transport helicopter movements, assumes a fire attack
lasting approximately 5 minutes. It is acceptable, within the overall strategy, to
employ at least one additional hand-controlled foam branch pipe for the delivery of
aspirated foam, to any part on the landing area or its appendages, with a minimum
discharge rate of 225 L/Min.
6. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS are shown within the
bracketed values in the above table.
MEDIUM H2 RFFS Standard Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance
Level B
Total
Minimum Minimum
foam
discharge duration
solution
rate of
(Min)
(Litres)
foam
(L/Min)
1200
600
(850)
(425)
(2)
400
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent (Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Pre-mix foam systems should be fully automatic and be capable of activating
instantaneously in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the helideck where fire
results. The automatic system should dispense aspirated or non-aspirated foam in
a jet or spray pattern.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 6
CAP 437
155
110
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent (Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Premix-foam units may be aspirated or non-aspirated but should be capable of
delivering agent to the seat of the fire.
5. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS in this case are
assumed to be equivalent to amounts specified for Performance Level C foams.
MEDIUM H2 RFFS Higher Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance
Level B
Total
Minimum Minimum
foam
discharge duration
discharge rate of
(Min)
(Litres)
foam
(L/Min)
May 2012
3000
600
(2125)
(425)
(5)
400
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent
(Kg)
18
Appendix D
Page 7
CAP 437
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type, capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Pre-mix foam systems should be fully automatic and be capable of activating
instantaneously in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the helideck where fire
results. The automatic system should dispense aspirated or non-aspirated foam in
a jet or spray pattern.
5. The primary media levels specified for a higher intensity operation which is staffed
for more than 50% of public transport helicopter movements, assumes a fire attack
lasting approximately 5 minutes. It is acceptable, within the overall strategy, to
employ at least one additional hand-controlled foam branch pipe for the delivery of
aspirated foam, to any part on the landing area or its appendages, with a minimum
discharge rate of 225 L/Min.
6. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS are shown within the
bracketed values in the above table.
LARGE H2 RFFS Standard Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance Level
B
Total
Minimum Minimum
foam
discharge discharge
discharge rate of
Duration
(Litres)
foam
(Min)
(L/Min)
1500
750
(1080)
(540)
(2)
525
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent
(Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 8
CAP 437
175
125
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
45
Gaseous
Agent (Kg)
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguishers should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Premix-foam units may be aspirated or non-aspirated but should be capable of
delivering agent to the seat of the fire.
5. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS in this case are
assumed to be equivalent to amounts specified for Performance Level C foams.
LARGE H2 RFFS Higher Intensity
Extinguishing Agent Requirements
Foam Meeting Performance
Level B
Total
Minimum Minimum
foam
discharge Duration
discharge rate of
(Min)
(Litres)
foam
(L/Min)
May 2012
Complementary Agent
Dry
And
Chemical
Powder
(Kg)
Gaseous
Agent
(Kg)
Appendix D
Page 9
CAP 437
3750
750
(2700)
(540)
(5)
2625
525
45
18
Notes:
1. Complementary agents should be capable of discharge at an effective rate delivered
from one or two extinguishers.
2. Halon extinguishing agents are no longer prescribed for new installations. Gaseous
agents, including CO2 have replaced them. Gaseous extinguisher should be
provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
3. Dry Chemical Powder should be a foam compatible type, capable of dealing with
Class B fire (or liquid hydrocarbons).
4. Pre-mix foam systems should be fully automatic and be capable of activating
instantaneously in the event of an impact of a helicopter on the helideck where fire
results. The automatic system should dispense aspirated or non-aspirated foam in
a jet or spray pattern.
5. The primary media levels specified for a higher intensity operation which is staffed
for more than 50% of public transport helicopter movements, assumes a fire attack
lasting approximately 5 minutes. It is acceptable, within the overall strategy, to
employ at least one additional hand controlled foam branch pipe for the delivery of
aspirated foam, to any part on the landing area or its appendages, with a minimum
discharge rate of 225 L/Min.
6. Where a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) meeting Performance Level B is
selected in lieu of standard foam, the capacity and application rate may be
accordingly reduced. The minimum requirements for CAFS are shown within the
bracketed values in the above table.
7. Timescales for rectification action
NUIs projects that are classed as higher intensity operations should be assigned the
highest priority and any necessary upgrade of RFFS should be completed within three
years from the date of this letter. For all other operations, with those classed as standard
intensity receiving priority over those classed as low intensity, rectification should be
completed within six years with an absolute cut-off for compliance of 30 June 2017.
8. Request to disseminate to industry asset duty holders
I would be grateful if you could disseminate this letter amongst your members. This letter is
copied for information to the offshore helicopter operators, the Helideck Certification
Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, Offshore Safety Division.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin P Payne
Flight Standards Officer
Flight Operations Inspectorate (Helicopters)
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 10
CAP 437
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 11
CAP 437
With the acceptance of the helicopter operator figures for projected future helicopter
movements and passenger numbers may be derived on the basis of data collected for an
installation over the previous three year period provided there are no foreseeable changes
in operating practices which might result in a significant increase in one or either
assessment parameter determining threshold limits.
The helicopter operator should be consulted on any queries that may arise for an
interpretation of frequency of visits.
3. Definitions and interpretations for re-defining Helicopter fire fighting categorisation
ICAO Annex 14 Volume II provides definitions for H1, H2 and H3 as follows:
Helicopter Category H1: A helicopter with an overall length up to but not including 15m.
Helicopter Category H2:
including 24m.
Note: H3 may be discounted on the basis there are no H3 helicopters operating to NUIs on
the UKCS.
For the purpose of calculating the critical area for helicopter fire fighting category H1, H2
and H3 for a heliport, the ICAO Heliport Manual applies critical area calculations based on
average fuselage dimensions for each category (to form a rectangular area of protection
around a generic helicopter). For helicopter operations to NUIs, nearly all the helicopters
being operated have fuselage dimensions that are appreciably greater than the average
fuselage dimensions assumed for each generic category. Therefore, to ensure the critical
area calculation addresses the fuselage dimensions for a range of helicopters likely to
operate to a NUI helideck, critical area assumptions have been determined using the worst
case helicopter type within a series of operating helicopters on the following basis:
Helicopter Category H1 Large: includes all Dauphin AS 365 variants.
Helicopter Category H2 Medium: includes all variants of the S76, AW 139 and the EC
155.
Helicopter Category H2 Large: includes EC 175, AS 332 L1 and L2, EC 225, S92, S61
and Bell 214.
For category H2 medium, the [bold] AW 139 is determined to be the worst case helicopter
with the largest dimensional combination of fuselage length x width (plus 4m) and for
category H2 Large, the [bold] S92 is assumed to be the worst case helicopter. Where NUIs
adopt levels in accordance with these helicopter definitions it may be automatically
assumed that any other helicopters listed in the same category, or in a lower category
(where applicable), are also authorised to use the helideck from the perspective of the
adequacy of RFFS. However, no account is taken of further additional types which might be
introduced to service NUI operations in the future.
4. Rationale for minimum application rates assumptions
According to ICAO Annex 14 Volume II and the Heliport Manual (Doc. 9261) any foam
concentrate used for heliport fire fighting should at least meet ICAO Performance Level B
(i.e. Performance Level A foams are not permitted). For Performance Level B foam the
standard application rate is 5.5 (L/min)/m2 based on the assumed critical area (m2). This is
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 12
CAP 437
the minimum application rate applied throughout this document for standard Performance
Level B foam (e.g. AFFF, FFFP). Advancements in foam technologies mean that the
aviation sector is now making increasing use of Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS).
Due to the superior fire suppression qualities of CAFS, it has been demonstrated through
comparative test programmes that where a Performance Level B Compressed Air Foam
System is utilised, the minimum application rate of the foam may be reduced to no less than
4.0 (L/min)/m2. In addition it is anticipated ICAO Annex 14 Volume I will in future sanction
the use of Performance Level C foams for aircraft fire fighting. In a similar way that
Performance Level B foam is more efficient than a Level A foam, which is reflected in a
lower application rate requirement, so Level C foam is proven to be more effective than a
comparative Level B foam. Consequently provision is made in the tables for the use of
Performance Level C foam discharged with a minimum application rate of not less than
3.75 (L/min)/m2. These developments effectively give offshore duty holders much more
flexibility to select foam systems based on the performance of each type of foam on the
understanding that the more effective the foam technology, the less overall foam solution
will be required to achieve the same results. This flexibility is especially useful for platforms
where additional topside weight and storage capability are most critical.
NOTE - ICAO Level C Foam: A new standard for fire fighting foam is currently proposed and
proceeding through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to be published in Annex 14
(Volume I) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The expected date for applicability of this
amendment is 15 November 2012. The standard will require an improvement in fire fighting
performance and foam manufacturers will be working to develop foams to meet this new standard.
As with any product with an environmental impact, a balance will need to be made between safety,
cost and the effects on the environment.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 13
CAP 437
and rescue crews should have at their disposal appropriate equipment including primary
and secondary media for the purpose of saving life (in the event of an accident occurring)
and/or for mopping up incidents involving minor fires (e.g. an engine fire). The level of
media prescribed is not intended to provide for an extended and sustained attack on a
major helicopter incident with fire.
6. Rescue equipment
Rescue equipment should be provided in accordance with CAP 437, Chapter 5, Section 7
and should be provided for all NUI assets regardless of their classification.
7. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
All responding RFF personnel should be provided with appropriate PPE to allow them to
carry out their duties in an effective manner. Sufficient personnel to operate the RFF
equipment effectively, when an installation is attended, should be dressed in suitable
protective clothing.
For the selection of appropriate PPE, account should be taken of the HSE Personal
Protective Equipment at Work Regulations (PPEWR) and the Provision and Use of Work
Equipment Regulations (PUWER) which require equipment to be suitable and safe for
intended use, maintained in a safe condition and, where appropriate, inspected to ensure it
remains fit for purpose. In addition equipment should only be used by personnel who have
received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by
suitable safety measures e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings. A responsible
person should be appointed to ensure all PPE is installed, stored, checked and maintained
in accordance with manufacturers instruction.
Appropriate PPE should be determined through a process of risk assessment acceptable to
the HCA and the offshore helicopter operators.
May 2012
Appendix D
Page 14
CAP 437
Galahad
Galleon PG
Galleon PN
Ganymede
Garrow
Grove
Guinevere
Hewett 48/29B
Hewett 48/29C
Hewett 48/29Q
Hewett 52/5A
Hoton
Hyde
Inde 18A
Inde 18B
Inde 23C
Inde 23D
Kelvin
Ketch
Kilmar
Lancelot
Leman 27B
Leman 27C
Leman 27D
Leman 27E
Leman 27F
Leman 27G
Leman 27H
Leman 27J
Malory
Markham ST-1
Mimas
Minerva
Munro
Shell B
Shell BT
Shell C
Shell D
Shell E
Shell F
Shell Leman G
South Valiant
Tethys
Trent
Tyne
Vampire
Vanguard QD
Victor JD
Viking AR
Vicking CD
Viking DD
Viking ED
Viking GD
Viking HD
Viking KD
Viking LD
Viscount
Vulcan 2 UR
Vulcan RD
Waveney
Wenlock
West Sole B
West Sole C
Windemere
Total No.NUIs = 116
Camelot A (subsequently
notified)
Audrey XW
Babbage
Barque PB
Barque PL
Boulton BM
Caister
Carrack QA
Cavendish
Chiswick
Covette
Europa
Excalibur
May 2012
Neptune
North Valiant SP
Pickerill A
Pickerill B
Ravenspurn North ST2
Ravenspurn North ST3
Ravenspurn RA
Ravenspurn RB
Ravenspurn RC
Saturn
Schooner
Sean R
Appendix D
Page 15
CAP 437
Appendix E
Introduction
1.1
1.2
The provision of meteorological information for the safety, efficiency and regulation
of international air navigation is subject to international standards and recommended
practices described in Annex 3 to the Chicago Convention published by ICAO.
Requirements for observer training and observing accuracy are set out by the United
Nation's World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
1.3
2.1
Wind
To be reported as per CAP 746 (Chapter 4, paragraph 3).
2.2
Visibility
To be reported in metres, as per CAP 746 (Chapter 4, paragraph 5). The visibility
reported is the minimum visibility. Visibilities greater than 10 km should be reported
as 9999.
2.3
Lightning
When lightning is observed, it should be included in the report.
2.4
Present Weather
2.4.1
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 1
CAP 437
Drizzle
Heavy Drizzle
Rain
Heavy Rain
Rain and Drizzle
Heavy Rain and Drizzle
Freezing Rain
Heavy Freezing Rain
Freezing Drizzle
Heavy Freezing Drizzle
Snow Grains
Snow
Heavy Snow
Rain and Snow
Heavy Rain and Snow
Ice Pellets
Rain Shower
Heavy Rain Shower
Rain and Snow Shower
Heavy Rain and Snow Shower
Snow Shower
Heavy Snow Shower
Hail Shower
Heavy Hail Shower
Shower in the Vicinity
Fog
Freezing Fog
Fog Patches
Partial Fog
Shallow Fog
Fog in the Vicinity
Haze
Mist
Smoke
Dust
Sea Spray
Squall
Funnel Cloud
Volcanic Ash
Blowing Sand
Sandstorm
NOTES: 1. Guidance on the reporting of these present weather phenomena is as per
CAP 746 (Chapter 4, paragraph 7).
2. No coding is required since the report is to be written in plain language.
3. If none of the above is observed then the entry for Present Weather will be Nil.
4. Where appropriate up to three of the above phenomena may be reported.
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 2
CAP 437
2.4.2
Reporting of Fog
Due to the small area that a helideck covers, compared to an aerodrome, the
following guidance has been provided for the reporting of fog. As each installation has
a 500 m exclusion zone it has been decided to use this for the reporting of fog. If there
is fog (either within or outside the 500 m zone) and the visibility is <1,000 m in all
directions then Fog (or Freezing Fog) should be reported as the Present Weather. If
there is fog within the 500 m zone and the visibility is <1,000 m in only some
directions then Partial Fog (fog bank) or Fog Patches should be reported as the
Present Weather. Shallow Fog will be reported as the Present Weather if it is
observed, whether patchy or as a continuous layer, within the 500 m zone below
helideck level (the visibility above the Shallow Fog will be 1,000 m or more). Where
there is no fog within the 500 m zone but fog can be seen within 8 km, the Present
Weather should be reported as Fog in the Vicinity with a note in the remarks section
indicating Shallow Fog, Partial Fog (fog bank) or Fog Patches. Additionally the remarks
section could also include a direction in which the fog is seen, e.g. Partial Fog to East.
2.5
Cloud
2.5.1
2.5.2
Cumulonimbus (CB) or Towering Cumulus (TCU) should be added to the report when
present.
2.5.3
Cloud heights are to be reported in plain language in feet AMSL, rounded down to the
nearest 100 ft. There is no requirement to report cloud above 5,000 ft unless CB or
TCU is present.
2.5.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
Remarks
This part of the form can be used to report additional Meteorological-related
information that may assist the helicopter crew, e.g. Lightning seen at 12.30, Fog
bank to SW, or Heavy Rain shower at 16.20. When a sensor is unavailable and an
estimate has been made of the conditions, a note should be recorded in the Remarks
section.
February 2013
Appendix E
Page 3
CAP 437
2.12
3.1
A pre-flight weather report form template is given below that should be used to
supply the relevant information. An example report is also provided (see Figure 2).
Location
Vessel
Heading
Lat
degrees
Long
Date
Time
degrees
Wind
UTC
knots
Speed
metres
Visibility
Gust
Lightning
Present
knots
Yes / No
Present Weather
Cloud amount
Cloud Height
feet
Cloud amount
Cloud Height
feet
Cloud amount
Cloud Height
feet
Cloud amount
Cloud Height
feet
Air Temperature
hPa
Pressure QNH
Significant Wave Height
degrees up
degrees down
Pitch
Roll
metres
Dew Point
hPa
QFE
Significant
Heave Rate
degrees left
degrees right
metres/sec
degrees
Helideck
Inclination
Remarks
Figure 1
February 2013
Appendix E
Page 4
CAP 437
Location
Lat
57
01
56
Date
16/04/2012
Wind
Long
01
Time
319 degrees
57
18
12:50 UTC
18 knots
Speed
2000 metres
Visibility
Gust
Lightning
Present
32 knots
Yes
Present Weather
Cloud amount
FEW
Cloud Height
800 feet
Cloud amount
SCT
Cloud Height
1200 feet
Cloud amount
BKN
Cloud Height
3000 feet
Cloud amount
BKN CB
Cloud Height
6000 feet
18 C
Air Temperature
1009 hPa
Pressure QNH
Significant Wave Height
Pitch
2.1 degrees up
1.3 degrees down
Remarks
Figure 2
Vessel
Heading
METOCEAN1
Roll
3.6 metres
12 C
Dew Point
QFE
Significant
Heave Rate
1004 hPa
1.1 metres/sec
2.8 degrees
Helideck
Inclination
4.1
4.2
Master Mariners who have been issued with a Marine Coastguard Agency (MCA)
Certificate Officer of the Watch (OOW) or equivalent qualification and are regularly
providing WMO-compliant ship meteorological observations may be considered
competent to provide weather observations for offshore helicopter operations.
However, Master Mariners are recommended to become certificated Offshore Met
Observers in order to ensure that the information being provided specifically to
helicopter operators is to the standards required since there are a number of
important differences compared to WMO ship observations.
February 2013
Appendix E
Page 5
CAP 437
5.1
Due to less frequent helicopter operations, the weather reports for smaller ships,
e.g. Diving Support Vessels (DSVs), support and seismic vessels and tankers (HLL
Codes 2 and 3), are required to contain only wind, pressure, air temperature and dew
point temperature information. For the purposes of this note, 'less frequent
helicopter operations' may be interpreted to mean 'not exceeding 12 landings per
year'. Similarly, where weather information is being provided by NUIs, the weather
report should include (as a minimum) wind, pressure, air temperature and dew point
temperature information. Following notification to the Southern Aviation Safety
Forum (SASF), only specific NUIs in the southern North Sea are required to provide
the information noted above.
6.1
6.1.1
Performance
a) The wind measuring equipment should provide an accurate and representative
measurement of wind speed and direction.
b) Wind direction data should be oriented with respect to True North.
c) The wind speed measurement should be to an accuracy of within 1 kt, or 10%
for wind speeds in excess of 10 kt, of the actual wind speed (whichever is the
greater), over the following ranges:
Table 1
Variable
Recoverable Range
Wind speed
0 to 100 kt
0 to 130 kt
d) With wind speeds in excess of 2 kt, the wind direction system should be capable
of producing an overall accuracy better than 10. The sensor should be sampled
at a minimum rate of four times every second. Where wind systems measure the
gust, the equipment should calculate the three-second gust as a rolling average of
the wind speed samples.
e) The equipment should be capable of producing two- and ten-minute rolling
averages of the wind speed and direction. The algorithms used for the production
of such averages should be defined. The average direction displayed should take
regard of the numerical discontinuity at North.
February 2013
Appendix E
Page 6
CAP 437
6.1.2
Back-up
A hand-held anemometer may be used as a back-up; any readings that are taken
should be taken from the centre of the helideck. The pilot should be advised that a
hand-held anemometer has been used to estimate the wind speed and a remark
should be added to the offshore weather report form.
6.1.3
Siting
(This is detailed in Chapter 6, paragraph 4.2.1, Assessment of Wind Speed and
Direction.)
The aim is to site the wind sensor in such a position to capture the undisturbed flow.
It is recommended that the wind sensor be mounted at the highest practical point,
e.g. on the drilling derrick or the telecommunications mast. However, it should be
noted that regular servicing is required and for that reason the flare stack should not
be used. If no suitable mast is available then a specific wind sensor mast should be
erected; however, this should not interfere with helicopter operations. If the location
is obstructed then a second anemometer should be fitted to cover any compass point
that may be obstructed from the primary wind sensor. The height AMSL for each
anemometer should be recorded. Ultrasonic sensors should not be fitted in close
proximity to electromagnetic sources such as radar transmitters.
6.2
Temperature
(See CAP 746, Chapter 7, paragraph 5.)
6.2.1
Performance
a) The equipment should be capable of measurement to an accuracy better than
1.0C for air temperature and dew point, over the following range:
Table 2
Variable
Recoverable Range
Temperature
25C to +50C
30C to +70C
Humidity
0 to 100% Relative
Humidity condensing
NOTE:
Dew point should be displayed for temperatures below zero; frost point should
not be displayed.
Back-up
Alternative sensors should be provided with an accuracy better than 1.0C for air
temperature and dew point measurement. These sensors should be able to be easily
read by the observer in the event of a failure of the main sensor.
6.2.3
Siting
Temperature and humidity sensors should be exposed in an instrument housing (e.g.
Stevenson Screen), which provides protection from atmospheric radiation and water
droplets as either precipitation or fog. The sensors should be located in an area that
is representative of the air around the landing area and away from exhausts of building
heating and equipment cooling systems. For this reason it is recommended that the
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 7
CAP 437
sensors are located as close to the helideck as possible. The most common area is
directly below the helideck, since this provides mechanical protection to the Screen
itself. The site should be free of obstructions and away from areas where air may be
stagnant, e.g. near blast walls or close to the superstructure of the platform.
6.3
Pressure
(See CAP 746, Chapter 7, paragraph 4.)
6.3.1
Performance
a) No observing system that determines pressure automatically should be dependent
upon a single sensor for pressure measurement. A minimum of two co-located
sensors should be used. The pressure sensors should be accurate to within
0.5 hectoPascals of each other.
NOTE:
Variable
Recoverable Range
Pressure
d) The sensor should provide an output with a minimum system resolution of 0.1 hPa.
6.3.2
Back-up
a) Suitable back-up instrumentation includes:
precision aneroid barometers; and
digital precision pressure indicators.
b) Where the pressure is not being determined automatically the observer should
ensure that the appropriate height and temperature corrections are applied.
c) Manual atmospheric pressure measuring equipment (as noted above) should be
checked daily for signs of sensor drift by comparison with other pressure
instrumentation located on the offshore installation. CAP 746, Appendix D, Daily
Atmospheric Pressure Equipment QNH Check, provides an example of the type of
form that may be used to assist in the monitoring process.
6.3.3
Siting
a) Pressure readings are of critical importance to aviation safety and operations.
Great care should be taken to ensure that pressure sensor siting is suitable and
provides accurate data.
b) Pressure sensors can accurately measure atmospheric pressure and will provide
representative data for the weather report provided the sensors are correctly
located and maintained.
c) The equipment should be installed so that the sensor measurements are suitable
for the operational purpose and free of external influences.
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 8
CAP 437
d) If the equipment is not installed at the same level as the notified helideck elevation,
it should be given a correction factor in order to produce values with respect to the
reference point. For QNH this is the height above sea level and for QFE the height
of helideck above sea level.
e) Where required, the manufacturer's recommended venting method should be
employed to isolate the sensor from the internal environment. The pressure
sensor should be installed in a safe area, typically the Telecommunications Room,
and in close proximity to the Meteorological processing system. In most cases,
internal venting of the pressure sensors will be satisfactory. However, if it is
determined that internal venting may affect the altimeter setting value to the
extent that it is no longer within the accuracy limits given below, outside venting
should be used. When the pressure sensor is vented to the outside a vent header
(water trap) should be used. The venting interface is designed to avoid and dampen
pressure variations and oscillations due to 'pumping' or 'breathing' of the pressure
sensor venting equipment.
f) The sensors should also be located in an area free of jarring, vibration and rapid
temperature fluctuations (i.e. avoid locations exposed to direct sunlight, draughts
from open windows, and locations in the direct path of air currents from heating or
cooling systems). Regular inspections of the vent header should be carried out to
ensure that the header does not become obstructed by dust etc.
6.4
Visibility
(See CAP 746, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.)
6.4.1
Performance
a) The performance of the measuring system is limited by the range and field of view
of the sensor. The equipment should be capable of measurement to the following
accuracy limits to a range of 15 km:
Range
Accuracy
Visibility 50 m
Visibility 10%
Visibility 20%
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 9
CAP 437
6.4.2
Back-up
The accredited observer should assess the visibility by eye. Where possible, visibility
reference points should be provided. Structures illuminated at night should be
indicated. When the visibility has been assessed by eye a remark should be included
in the weather report form.
6.4.3
Siting
The sensor should be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications and is normally mounted on a mast. The visibility sensor transmits an
infrared beam that measures the refraction caused by suspended particles that
obstruct visibility, i.e. mist, fog, haze, dust and smoke. For this reason it is important
to avoid any interference such as flares, smoke vents, etc. Areas of the installation
that are used for wash-down or are susceptible to sea spray should be avoided. The
sensor should be located as far away as practicable from other light sources that
might affect the measurement, including direct sunlight or spotlights etc., as these
will cause interference. These sensors are only suitable for safe areas. These sensors
require routine maintenance, calibration and cleaning; hence they should be
positioned in a location that is easily accessible.
6.5
6.5.1
Performance
a) The sensor should be capable of detecting a precipitation rate greater than or equal
to 0.05 mm per hour, within 10 minutes of the precipitation commencing.
b) Where intensity is measured, the sensor should be capable of measuring the
range of intensity from 0.00 mm per hour to 100 mm per hour and resolve this to
the following resolutions:
Range
Resolution
0.1 mm
0.5 mm
1 mm
c) The sensor should be accurate to within 30% in the range 0.5 to 20 mm per hour.
d) Where the sensor is capable of doing so, it should discriminate between liquid
precipitation and frozen precipitation.
6.5.2
Back-up
The accredited observer should assess the present weather manually, assisted by
reference material as appropriate. When the present weather has been assessed
manually a remark should be included in the offshore weather report form.
6.5.3
Siting
The sensor should be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications. The sensor should be located as far away as practicable from the
shielding effects of obstacles and structures.
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 10
CAP 437
6.6
Cloud
(See CAP 746, Chapter 7, paragraph 6.)
6.6.1
Performance
a) The performance of the cloud base recorder is limited by the view of the sensor.
The equipment should be capable of measurement to the following accuracy
limits, from the surface up to 5,000 ft above ground level:
Range
Accuracy
Cloud height 30 ft
Above 300 ft
Back-up
The accredited observer should assess the cloud by eye and estimate the height,
assisted by reference material where appropriate. It should be noted that human
estimates of cloud height without reference to any form of measuring equipment
(particularly at night) may not meet the accuracy requirements stated above, so it is
essential that when the cloud height has been assessed manually a remark is
included in the offshore weather report form.
6.6.3
Siting
The sensor should be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications and is normally mounted on a platform or pedestal. The sensor should
be located as far away as practicable from other light sources or reflections that might
affect the measurement. Most ceilometers are fitted with blowers that prevent
precipitation from settling on the lens; however, it is recommended that the sensor
is installed in an area free of sea spray and away from any areas that are used routinely
for wash-down. The sensor should have a clear view of the sky, uninterrupted by
cranes or other structures that may obscure the sensors view. The height of the
sensor above sea level should be noted to ensure that the necessary correction is
applied to all readings. These types of sensors are only suitable for installation in safe
areas and should not be installed near to radars or other radio transmitters.
7.1
May 2012
Appendix E
Page 11
CAP 437
Dear Sirs
PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORISING OFFSHORE HELICOPTER LANDING AREAS
This letter updates the legal requirements and related industry procedure for the authorisation
of offshore helicopter landing areas on installations and vessels for the worldwide use by
helicopters registered in the United Kingdom.
Article 96 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2009 requires a public transport helicopter
operator to reasonably satisfy himself that every place he intends to take off or land is suitable
for purpose.
A UK registered helicopter, therefore, shall not operate to an offshore helicopter landing area
unless the operator has satisfied itself that the helicopter landing area is suitable for purpose
and that it is properly described in the helicopter operator's Operations Manual.
CAP 437 gives guidance on standards for the arrangements that the CAA expects an operator
to have in place in order to discharge this responsibility under article 96. The Helideck
Certification Agency (HCA) procedure is established through a memorandum of understanding
to withdraw helicopter landing area certification on behalf of the four offshore helicopter
operators - Bristow Helicopters Ltd, Bond Offshore, CHC Scotia and British International
Helicopters - to enable each to discharge its responsibilities under the ANO.
Article 12 of the ANO 2009 provides that to hold an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) an
operator must satisfy the CAA that amongst other things its equipment, organisation and other
arrangements are such that it is able to secure the safe operation of aircraft.
When looking at a particular operator, the CAA will therefore have regard to its other
arrangements. These arrangements include the manner in which the operator discharges its
duty under article 96, and the CAA for the grant or ongoing assessment of an AOC will audit
the helicopter operators application of the process on which the operator relies. As part of
such an audit the CAA will periodically audit the processes and procedures of the HCA, in
acting in the role of a sub-contractor to the helicopter operators providing their services to AOC
holders for the purpose of authorising offshore helicopter landing areas. As part of such an
audit, the CAA will review the HCA procedures and processes and may accompany an
operator when the operator undertakes an audit of the HCA procedures or inspects an offshore
helicopter landing area.
The legal acceptance for the safety of landing sites rests with the helicopter operator.
Yours faithfully
Captain C Armstrong
Manager Flight Operations Inspectorate (Helicopters)
May 2012
Appendix F
Page 1
CAP 437
Introduction
1.1
Chapter 4, paragraph 3 sets out the best practice requirements for helideck lighting
systems consisting of green perimeter lighting, a lit TD/PM Circle and a lit heliport
identification 'H' marking. The statement is made within this paragraph that reliance
on helideck floodlighting as a provision of primary visual cueing is no longer
supported. However, the CAA has no objection to systems conforming to the good
practice guidance contained in this Appendix being retained as a back-up for the Circle
and 'H' lighting. Where required, floodlights may also be used for lighting the
installation name on the helideck.
1.2
2.1
The whole of the landing area should be adequately illuminated if intended for night
use. Experience has shown that floodlighting systems, even when properly aligned,
can adversely affect the visual cueing environment by reducing the conspicuity of
helideck perimeter lights during the approach, and by causing glare and loss of pilots'
night vision during the hover and landing. Furthermore, floodlighting systems often
fail to provide adequate illumination of the centre of the landing area leading to the socalled 'black-hole effect'. It is essential, therefore, that any floodlighting arrangements
take full account of these problems. Further good practice guidance on suitable
arrangements is provided (below) in paragraph 3 'Improved Floodlighting System',
extracted from a further interim guidance letter issued by the CAA on 9 March 2006
and updated for this Appendix.
2.2
February 2013
Appendix G
Page 1
CAP 437
2.3
The floodlighting should be arranged so as not to dazzle the pilot and, if elevated and
located off the landing area clear of the LOS, the system should not present an
obstacle to helicopters landing and taking off from the helideck. All floodlights should
be capable of being switched on and off at the pilot's request. Setting up of lights
should be undertaken with care to ensure that the issues of adequate illumination and
glare are properly addressed and regularly checked. For some decks it may be
beneficial to improve depth perception by floodlighting the main structure or 'legs' of
the platform.
NOTE: It is important to confine the helideck lighting to the landing area, since any
light overspill may cause reflections from the sea. The floodlighting controls
should be accessible to, and controlled by, the HLO or Radio Operator.
3.1
For helidecks located on platforms with a sufficiently high level of illumination from
cultural lighting, the need for an improved floodlighting system may be reviewed with
the helicopter operator(s), i.e. in such circumstances it may be sufficient just to delete
or disable the existing deck level floodlighting. This concession assumes that the level
of illumination from cultural lighting is also sufficiently high to facilitate deck
operations such as movement of passengers and refuelling (where applicable). It is a
condition that, prior to the removal of floodlights, extended trials of the 'no-floodlight'
configuration are conducted and their subsequent removal will be subject to
satisfactory reports from air crews to indicate the acceptability of operating to the
helideck with the re-configured lighting.
3.2
In the absence of sufficient cultural lighting, the CAA recommends that installation
owners consider a deck level floodlighting system consisting of four deck-level xenon
floodlights (or alternative lights having the same photometric specification) equally
spaced around the perimeter of the helideck. In considering this solution, installation
owners should ensure that the deck-level xenon units do not present a source of glare
or loss of pilots' night vision on the helideck, and do not affect the ability of the pilots
to determine the location of the helideck on the installation. It is therefore essential
that all lights are maintained in correct alignment. It is also desirable to position the
lights such that no light is pointing directly away from the prevailing wind. Floodlights
located on the upwind (for the prevailing wind direction) side of the deck should
ideally be mounted so that the centreline of the floodlight beam is at an angle of 45
to the reciprocal of the prevailing wind direction. This will minimise any glare or
disruption to the pattern formed by the green perimeter lights for the majority of
approaches. An example of an acceptable floodlighting arrangement is shown at
Figure 1.
NOTE: For some larger helidecks it may be necessary to consider fitting more than
four deck-level xenon floodlights (or alternative lights having the same
photometric specification), but this should be carefully considered in
conjunction with the helicopter operator giving due regard to the issues of
glare and loss of definition of the helideck perimeter before further deck-level
units are procured. The CAA does not recommend more than six units even
on the largest helidecks. The height of any floodlighting when installed
around the helideck should not exceed 25 cm above deck level or (for a
helideck where the D-value is 16.00 m or less) be more than 5 cm above
deck level.
February 2013
Appendix G
Page 2
CAP 437
NAME
9.3t
22
22
22
Figure 1
May 2012
Appendix G
Page 3